With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". C.J. In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former wife raises numerous arguments. We find that the trial court did not make the required statutory findings related to timesharing, equitable distribution, and the amount of child support. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. First, we agree with the former wife that the trial court erred in providing for equal time-sharing without an accompanying finding that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the children. See Jeffers v. McLeary, 118 So.3d 287, 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The Father is correct that ‘a trial court must make a finding that the time-sharing schedule is in the child’s best interests.’ ”); Winters v. Brown, 51 So.3d 656, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>); Clark v. Clark, 825 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla.

A: holding that requiring a petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is in the best interests of the child would provide effective protection for a parents choice except where the choice is plainly contrary to a childs best interests
B: holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child
C: holding that a childs preference regarding parental contact is not determinative of the best interest analysis and that a court must assess a childs best interest in light of all statutory factors
D: recognizing that a trial court must make a finding that the timesharing schedule is in the childs best interests
D.