Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to allow the court an opportunity to make an explicit finding as to a change of circumstances relevant to the terms of the joint physical custody plan, and to consider adjustments which may be in the best interest of the child in regard to the specifics of the plan. If the trial court adjusts the plan of joint physical custody in such a way that it is appropriate for the court to adjust child support, the trial court may, of course, revisit the issue of child support in accordance with such changes. Otherwise, if the child's time remains equally divided between the parents, there will be no change in child support. The court, of course, should make no greater adjustments than are reasonably necessary in its discretion to address the particular problems in question. The court may, however, take into account any circumstances which have arisen during the time this case has been on appeal.
Judgment is reversed.
The case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court, however, in interpreting the opinion, apparently believed that in reinstating joint legal and physical custody there was no choice but to divide the time equally between the two parents. We do not believe that was the mandate of this court. We believe that the mandate called for the trial judge to maintain the formal status of joint legal and physical custody, but also to do whatever the court felt would best address the need of the child not to be transported back and forth so often, and to allow the child to spend the majority of the time with one parent. For the reasons stated, I would hold that the trial court did not comply with the mandate.