In In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, the California Supreme Court explained: "California's statutory scheme governing child custody and visitation determinations is set forth in the Family Code ... . Under this scheme, 'the overarching concern is the best interest of the child.' For purposes of an initial custody determination, section 3040, subdivision (b), affords the trial court and the family ' "the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child." ' When the parents are unable to agree on a custody arrangement, the court must determine the best interest of the child by setting the matter for an adversarial hearing and considering all relevant factors, including the child's health, safety, and welfare, any history of abuse by one parent against any child or the other parent, and the nature and amount of the child's contact with the parents. Once the trial court has entered a final or permanent custody order reflecting that a particular custodial arrangement is in the best interest of the child, 'the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements--and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker--weigh heavily in favor of maintaining' that custody arrangement. In recognition of this policy concern, we have articulated a variation on the best interest standard, known as the changed circumstance rule, that the trial court must apply when a parent seeks modification of a final judicial custody determination. Under the changed circumstance rule, custody modification is appropriate only if the parent seeking modification demonstrates 'a significant change of circumstances' indicating that a different custody arrangement would be in the child's best interest. Not only does this serve to protect the weighty interest in stable custody arrangements, but it also fosters judicial economy. The Family Code contemplates that, in making a custody determination, consideration of the best interest of the child may lead the trial court to award custody either to both parents (joint or shared custody) or to only one parent (sole custody)." In that case, the Supreme Court held that where sole legal and physical custody of a child has been awarded to one parent after a contested custody dispute, a noncustodial parent opposing the custodial parent's decision to relocate with the child is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at pp. 952, 955.)