J.C.

DISCUSSION

Mother did not file a respondent's brief. Regardless, it remains Father’s “affirmative burden to show error.” (In re Marriage of Davies (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 851, 854.) Father first posits the trial court should have applied the change of circumstances standard, not the best interest of the child standard to modify the Hawaii order. He contends that although he did not raise this issue below it is not waived because it is a pure question of law presented on undisputed facts. (Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 412, 417.) We agree it is a question of law but conclude the trial court was correct. Where, as here, parents share joint physical custody under an existing order and in fact, and one parent seeks to relocate with the child, the family law court “must determine de novo what arrangement for primary custody is in the best interest of the minor children.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th at p. 40, fn. 12 (Burgess); see also In re Marriage of Williams (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 808, 812; Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344.) Thus, we conclude the trial court correctly applied the best interest standard in determining…