Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and supports a modification without any further proof of a change in cireamstance. "A well-founded custody preference by a child can support modification of custody without proof of any other change of cireumstance." Id. at ¶ 17, 211 P.3d at 927 (citing Hogue v. Hogue, 2008 OK CIV APP 63, ¶ 7, 190 P.3d 1177, 1180; Nelson v. Nelson, 2004 OK CIV APP 6, ¶ 4, 83 P.3d 911, 913; Nazsworth v. Nazworth, 1996 OK CIV APP 134, ¶ 12, 931 P.2d 86, 88). The trial court's decision granting Father's motion to modify custody is affirmed. CONCLUSION ] 23 The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting Father's motion to modify custody and we affirm. 1 24 AFFIRMED. BARNES, V.C.J., and FISCHER, P.J., concur. 1 . See also Hogue v. Hogue, 2008 OK CIV APP 63, 19, 190 P.3d 1177, 1180 (<HOLDING>) preference to support the modification of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a transcript of a recording even though defense counsel did not stipulate to its accuracy (B) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules (C) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant (D) holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by tracking the statutory language in the instruction (E) holding the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody even though the court did not find father had shown a material change other than the 15 year old childs
Output (English): holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant