With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plan before it was incorporated into the final judgment. Consequently, she was not required to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances, which is the standard required when seeking to modify a final judgment. See, e.g., Lewandowski v. Langston, 969 So.2d 1165, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (explaining that when party seeks to modify final judgment of dissolution of marriage to change custody of child, that party bears burden of establishing existence of substantial and material change in circumstances since entry of final judgment, and that change in custody will be in best interests of child). For these reasons, we reverse the final judgment in part, and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing on the issue of the parenting plan and related child support. See Jones, 674 So.2d at 774 (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and

A: holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child
B: holding that when parent asserts that agreement is not in best interests of child trial court must hold evidentiary hearing
C: recognizing that a trial court must make a finding that the timesharing schedule is in the childs best interests
D: holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing
B.