In Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, the court addressed the issue of which standard the trial court must use to rule on a move-away request when the parents have joint physical and legal custody of the child. The majority concluded that the changed circumstance rule does not apply to a joint custody move-away situation because "modification of the coparenting arrangements is not a change of custody requiring change of circumstances." (Id. at p. 363.) The Niko court held that the trial court "must review de novo the best interest of the child" and may "fashion a new time-share arrangement for the parents." (Id. at p. 364.) The mother filed an order to show cause to modify a prior joint custody judgment that provided for a 50/50 coparenting plan to facilitate a move out of state. The trial court continued the joint custody order but allowed mother to move with the child and adjusted the coparenting plan accordingly. A panel of the Court rejected the father's contention the trial court erred in not awarding sanctions against the mother pursuant to sections 3027.1 and 271 based on the mother's false abuse allegations. The court held the sanction request was procedurally defective under section 271 because the father first made his sanction request in his written closing argument. The court noted section 271 provides the court may not award fees and costs without notice to the party against whom sanctions are sought and an opportunity for that party to be heard. In Niko, the father's untimely request for sanctions failed to comply with the statute and denied the mother her due process right to respond or be heard on the matter. In sum, in Niko v. Foreman, the mother requested modification of a joint custody judgment, in which the parties had 50/50 joint physical custody. The mother wanted sole physical custody so as to facilitate her moving out of state with the child. The court held in Niko that the trial court properly considered child custody de novo in determining whether relocation of the child would be in the child's best interests. (Id. at p. 365.) The Niko court explained that, "When the parents have joint physical custody, modification of the coparenting arrangements is not a change of custody requiring change of circumstances. Instead, the trial court has wide discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child. . The joint custody moving parent does not have the presumptive right to change the child's residence, and bears no burden of proving the move is essential or imperative. . Nor does the opposing nonmoving parent bear the burden of showing substantial changed circumstances require a change in custody or that the move will be detrimental to the child." (Niko, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at pp. 363-364) The Niko court added that "The value in preserving an established custodian arrangement and maintaining stability in a child's life is obvious. But when the status quo is no longer viable and parents have joint custody, a court must review de novo the best interest of the child. It can fashion a new time-share arrangement for the parents." (Niko, at p. 364.)