Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by Oklahoma law. She definitively stated she preferred to live with Father, wanted to live closer to extended family, and had been considering this decision for almost two years. 122 Although Buffalo is factually distinguishable, we agree with the appellate court's position that "[i]t is the explanation, the supporting reasons and all the factors that led to the preference that allow the court to examine the child's preference in terms of the requirements outlined in Gibbons." Id. at ¶ 18, 211 P.3d at 927. Here, we have considered FIL's explanation, supporting reasons, and factors that led to her preference in order to determine ii the G4ib-bons requirements have been met. After doing so, we conclude FIL's preference is y"); Eimen v. Eimen, 2006 OK CIV APP 23, ¶ 14, 131 P.3d 148, 152 (<HOLDING>). 2 . Although the Legislature amended section 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child (B) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (C) holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances (D) holding fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody (E) holding that an employer seeking modification must show a change in claimants physical condition
Output (English): holding fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody