After an amicable divorce, Alexa Burnham had physical custody of the parties’ two children under an agreement requiring the parents to live within 120 miles of the marital home unless employment required a move. Alexa later moved within that distance, and Bruce sought to modify custody after disputes over support and visitation. The trial court granted Bruce’s petition, focusing on the children’s best interests but not expressly finding a material change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. It held that a custody modification requires a threshold finding of changed circumstances affecting the children before the court reaches the best-interest analysis. The trial court’s order did not make that finding and instead stated that relocation made best interests the sole consideration. Because the appellate court could not infer the missing finding from the order, the trial court had to reconsider the threshold issue and make appropriate factual findings. The decision preserves the trial judge’s role in evaluating custody while requiring the statutory sequence of analysis.