¶1concurring.
¶2I agree with most of the majority opinion. I write separately only to point out that there is more than the parents’ stipulation in this ease to obviate the normal requirement of a two-step analysis for change of custody.
¶3We require the two-step analysis for change of custody in order to protect and encourage stability in children’s lives. That is a purpose which I fully support. But here the trial court specifically found that “neither parent has had any permanence as a family unit due to the constant shifting of the child since the date of the original divorce.” I see no point in requiring a two-step analysis to protect stability when, as in this case, there is no stability to protect. I would make the lack of stability, rather than the parents’ stipulation, the basis for omitting the usual two-step analysis in a ease such as this.