trial court’s findings, specifically, regarding the best interests of the minor child. The court cannot change the timeshar-ing arrangements purely as punishment in the absence of evidence of what is in the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Edgar v. Firuta, 100 So.3d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing trial court’s modification of parental plan to award father sole parental responsibility over children, which was based on mother’s willfully disobedient relocation of children to another state rather than on evidence-based assessment of twenty statutory best interests factors); Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So.2d 946, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (explaining that trial court cannot modify child's custody to punish custodial parent); Ginder v. Ginder, 536 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
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 holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms 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 court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that a parents right to appeal the change of permanency plan is limited by the sound discretion of the court taking into account the best interests of the child