to allow Appellant to enroll the oldest child in a new school due to issues with people with whom she was associating at her former school. The trial court also relied on Dr. Bloomfield’s child custody evaluation, finding that Dr. Bloomfield concluded the children were not living in a stable environment; the time-sharing plan in the original custody order was no longer working since Appellant relocated; there was “no overwhelming reason to maintain the current community”; and the time-sharing plan was detrimental to the children unless the parties agreed to move closer together. Although these conclusions focus in large part on Appellant’s relocation, it is evident that the real problem was not Appellant’s relocation per se, but the strain the move put on an already antagonistic relati (<HOLDING>). It is abundantly clear from the pleadings,
holding fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody holding that the issue of custody was foreign to the dissolution action because the husband was not the natural father but that the husband could seek to intervene to assert a thirdparty custody claim in a pending custody modification proceeding between the childs natural parents holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances