Warren and Warren

                                 111

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
   Argued and submitted December 23, 2022, affirmed February 1, 2023


               In the Matter of the Marriage of
                   Sara Nichole WARREN,
                      aka Sara Warren,
                     Petitioner-Appellant,
                              and
                    Robert Lee WARREN,
                    aka Robert L. Warren,
                   Respondent-Respondent.
                  Lane County Circuit Court
                     151216872; A176233


  Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge.
   Michael Vergamini argued the cause and filed the brief
for appellant.
  No appearance by respondent.
  Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and
Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
  HADLOCK, J. pro tempore.
  Affirmed.
112                                     Warren and Warren

        HADLOCK, J. pro tempore
          Mother appeals a supplemental judgment changing
custody of the child, K, from mother to father. On appeal,
mother argues that the trial court erred by (1) applying an
incorrect legal standard when it made its change-of-custody
determination; (2) determining that the facts were sufficient
to justify a change of custody; (3) failing to make sufficient
best-interest findings to justify a change of custody; and
(4) failing to make best-interest findings when it modified
the parenting-time schedule.
         Having reviewed the entirety of the record and
mother’s arguments on appeal, we affirm the supplemental
judgment. The trial court applied the correct legal standard
when deciding whether to change custody from mother to
father. See generally Botofan-Miller and Miller, 

,

 (2019), cert den, 

 (2020) (discussing
when changed circumstances can justify a change in custody). Moreover, evidence in the record supports the court’s
factual findings about the child’s condition and living circumstances and its ultimate determination that a change of
circumstances had occurred that justified a change in custody. We therefore reject mother’s first and second assignments of error.
         We reject mother’s third and fourth assignments of
error as unpreserved and, with respect to the fourth assignment, as not meriting plain-error review. See Botofan-Miller,

 (rejecting a similar argument about lack of
findings because it was not preserved for appeal).
        Affirmed.