modifying custody for abuse of discretion. Lewandowski v. Langston, 969 So.2d 1165, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). This being said, however, it is an established principle that the trial court does not have the same broad discretion to modify custody that it exercises in initial determinations of custody. The party seeking a modification of custody carries an extraordinary burden of proving both elements of a two-pronged test. The party must demonstrate that there has been a substantial and material change of circumstances since the time of the final judgment of dissolution and that the welfare of the child will be promoted by the change in custody. Boykin v. Boykin, 843 So.2d 317, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (citations omitted); see also Jablon v. Jablon, 579 So.2d 902, 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>); Cooper v. Gress, 854 So.2d 262, 267 (Fla. 1st
holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under  1292a1 holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding court has considerably less discretion in a modification proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding