With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its discretion by modifying the timesharing agreement without evidence that the welfare of the minor child would be promoted by returning him to his former school in Lake County and changing the timesharing arrangement to have the father assume the primary timesharing responsibilities. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2014); Holland v. Holland, 140 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. On remand, the court shall take evidence and use the best interests of the child standard to determine if modification is in the child’s best interests in light of the parties’ inability to agree which school the minor child will attend. See, e.g., Watt v. Watt, 966 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Once that determination is made, the trial

A: holding that a hearing is required when a modification of parenting time would change the established custodial environment
B: 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
C: holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification
D: holding that parties inability to agree on which private high school child would attend constituted substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting plan
D.