In Brody v. Kroll (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1732 (Brody), the parents had joint legal custody with physical custody to the mother. The mother filed an order to show cause, seeking permission to move out of state with the child. The child's father opposed the move, and he marked the box indicating custody was at issue in his responsive papers. (Id. at p. 1735.) The court held the pending move clearly constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to allow the court to consider a change in custody, and the change in circumstances, coupled with the father's response, properly placed the issue of custody before the court. (Id. at p. 1736.) In Brody v. Kroll, the mother had "primary physical custody" under an arrangement that expressly provided for the child to stay with the father two nights per week and all day Saturday, except on those Saturdays when the child attended Hebrew school. (Id. at p. 1735.) In fact, however, the "father saw the child as frequently as four or five days a week." (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal held that the trial court should have applied the de novo standard to the mother's request to relocate with the children to Connecticut. (Id. at pp. 1736-1737.) The appellate court observed that a "move by a custodial parent constitutes a significant change of circumstances which may justify a transfer of custody to the noncustodial parent." ( Id. at pp. 1735-1736.) The appellate court also observed: "As a practical matter, a hearing on a request for a so- called move-away order necessarily involves issues of custody and visitation. The issue is not whether the custodial parent will be permitted to move, since both the federal and California Constitutions preclude the court from prohibiting a move." ( Id. at p. 1736.)