16 Mar Florida Child Relocation Law: Complete Guide for Parents
Summary
Florida Statute § 61.13001 governs every parental relocation request in Miami and across Florida, requiring either a written agreement from all parties with time-sharing rights or a court-filed petition served on every such person before a parent may relocate with a child. Courts decide contested petitions under a no-presumption, burden-shifting best interest framework, with the relocating parent bearing the initial burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and the child's welfare remaining the paramount consideration throughout.
Introduction: Understanding Florida Parental Relocation Law
If you are a parent in Miami or anywhere in Miami-Dade County who is considering moving with your child, or if you are the other parent who just learned of a proposed relocation, one of the most consequential statutes in Florida family law applies directly to your situation. Florida Statute § 61.13001 governs parental relocation with a child, and it does so with a level of procedural specificity that courts enforce strictly. Understanding what this statute requires, what it forbids, and how Florida appellate courts have interpreted it is not optional for any Miami parental relocation attorney advising a client in this area. It is the starting point for every strategic decision that follows.
Relocation disputes arise in every corner of Miami-Dade County, from families in Coral Gables and Brickell to those in Homestead, Kendall, and North Miami Beach. The demographic diversity of South Florida, combined with the region’s deep international ties and a mobile workforce, means that relocation requests involving moves to other states, other countries, and even different parts of Florida are routine in the family courtrooms of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. At the same time, the procedural and substantive requirements of § 61.13001 remain uniform across the state, and compliance with those requirements is a threshold condition that courts do not waive lightly.
This article provides an analysis of Florida’s parental relocation statute. It examines the statute’s scope and applicability, the procedural pathways available to a parent seeking to relocate, the shifting burdens of proof that govern contested proceedings, the temporary relief mechanisms available pending final determination, the consequences of noncompliance, and the interplay between § 61.13001 and the general time-sharing modification standard found in § 61.13. Throughout, the analysis is grounded in the plain text of the statute and the body of Florida appellate case law that has shaped its application. Clients searching for a qualified Florida parental relocation attorney in Miami will find this treatment useful as a foundation for understanding the legal landscape before their first consultation.
Scope and Application of Florida Statute § 61.13001
Before analyzing what § 61.13001 requires, it is important to understand when it applies. The governing statute on parental relocation with a child in Florida is § 61.13001, Fla. Stat. (2017), as recognized in Gimonge v. Gimonge, 239 So. 3d 1275. The statute applies to orders entered before October 1, 2009, if the existing order does not expressly govern relocation, and it applies to all orders entered on or after October 1, 2009 that address parenting plans, time-sharing, or custody. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. To the extent that a provision of § 61.13001 conflicts with the terms of an order existing on October 1, 2009 that expressly governs relocation, the statute does not apply to those conflicting terms. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001.
This temporal framework matters in practice because it means that most current orders entered by Florida courts after October 2009 are subject to the statute in full. For orders predating that date, the inquiry is whether the existing order itself expressly addressed relocation. If it did, the parties are bound by the order’s terms to the extent they conflict with the statute. If the pre-2009 order is silent on relocation, § 61.13001 fills the gap and governs the parties’ obligations.
The statute defines relocation as a change in the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence to a new principal place of residence that is at least fifty miles away from the existing principal place of residence of the parent or other person, for a period of at least sixty consecutive days, not including a temporary absence from the principal residence for purposes of vacation, education, or provision of health care for the child. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. For Miami families, this definition is practically significant because it means that a parent moving from Miami to Fort Lauderdale or Palm Beach could trigger the statute, as could a parent proposing a move to Tampa, Atlanta, or New York.
Two Pathways to Parental Relocation: Agreement and Petition
Florida Statute § 61.13001 contemplates two and only two lawful pathways through which a parent may relocate with a child. The first is a written agreement of the parents and every other person entitled to access or time-sharing with the child. Gimonge v. Gimonge, 239 So. 3d 1275. The second, applicable when no such agreement exists, is a court-approved petition to relocate. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. There is no third option. A parent who simply relocates without complying with one of these two pathways does so in derogation of the statute and exposes himself or herself to serious legal consequences, as discussed in detail below.
Relocation by Written Agreement
When both parents and all other persons with access or time-sharing rights agree to the proposed relocation, the statute permits the relocation to proceed upon entry of a written agreement that sets forth the new time-sharing schedule, the transportation arrangements, and any other terms the parties deem appropriate. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. The agreement must be ratified by the court, which will then incorporate the terms into the existing parenting plan or enter a new order as appropriate. This pathway is obviously preferable from an efficiency and cost standpoint, as it avoids contested litigation entirely.
In the Miami-Dade context, a skilled parental relocation attorney will often work proactively with the opposing party or opposing counsel to explore whether an agreement can be reached before resorting to litigation. That approach not only saves time and money but also tends to produce outcomes that both parents can live with, which in turn reduces the risk of future noncompliance and contempt proceedings.
Relocation by Petition: The Mandatory Filing Requirement
When an agreement cannot be reached, the statute mandates that the parent seeking relocation file a petition to relocate with the court. Unless an agreement has been entered, a parent seeking relocation must file a petition to relocate and serve it upon the other parent and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. The petition-and-service requirement is not a technicality that courts look past. As the Florida appellate court held in Milton v. Milton, 113 So. 3d 1040, § 61.13001(3)(a) unambiguously requires that, absent agreement of both parents, a parent wishing to relocate file a petition and that the petition be served on the other parent.
The petition itself must contain specific information prescribed by the statute, including the location of the intended new residence, the mailing address if different, the home telephone number if available, the date of the intended move or proposed relocation, a detailed statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation, and a proposed revised post-relocation schedule for time-sharing. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. A petition that is deficient in these respects may be challenged by the nonrelocating parent, and courts have recognized the right to seek remedial relief when a petition fails to comply with statutory requirements.
Service Requirements
Service of the petition must be accomplished on the other parent and on every other person entitled to access and time-sharing with the child. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. If there is no pending court action regarding the child at the time the petition is filed, service must be accomplished according to Chapters 48 and 49 of the Florida Statutes, or via certified mail with restricted delivery and return receipt requested. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. Where a court action is already pending, service is completed through the standard service-of-process rules applicable to that proceeding.
The service requirement exists to ensure that every person who has a legal right to time with the child receives notice of the proposed relocation and an opportunity to object. That notice function is central to the statutory scheme, because the consequences that flow from a failure to object depend entirely on the nonrelocating parent having been properly served. A relocating parent who attempts to shortcut the service requirement risks not only a procedural challenge but also a finding that any subsequent action taken by the court in reliance on deficient service is void.
The Objection Process, the Presumption of Best Interest, and Good Cause
Once the petition is served, the nonrelocating parent and every other person entitled to access or time-sharing must decide whether to file a written response objecting to the proposed relocation. The statute creates a significant procedural consequence for a failure to object: if the other parent fails to timely file a response objecting, it is presumed that the relocation is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall, absent good cause, enter an order permitting the relocation and adopting the time-sharing and transportation schedule proposed in the petition. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001.
This presumption is not automatic, however, because the statute preserves a “good cause” exception. The statute provides for an exception when good cause exists, and where good cause is found to exist, the presumption does not apply and the matter proceeds to a hearing on the merits. Sanabria v. Sanabria, 271 So. 3d 1101. The practical effect of this exception is that even a nonrelocating parent who fails to object in time has a limited avenue to avoid the automatic order by demonstrating good cause for the failure to comply with the response deadline.
For Miami parents who receive a relocation petition, the importance of consulting a qualified Florida parental relocation attorney immediately cannot be overstated. The deadline to respond is not forgiving, and the consequences of missing it are severe. Similarly, for the relocating parent, properly documenting service and confirming the deadline has passed without a timely objection may be the most efficient path to an order permitting the proposed move.
Temporary Relief and Expedited Scheduling in Florida Parental Relocation Cases
Florida Statute § 61.13001 contains specific provisions governing temporary relief pending the final determination of a relocation petition. These provisions serve two distinct purposes: they protect the nonrelocating parent from being placed in an impossible situation if the relocating parent moves prematurely, and they ensure that relocation proceedings receive the kind of expedited calendar treatment that the disruptive nature of relocation demands.
Temporary Relocation Orders
A court may grant a temporary order permitting relocation, but only where the relocating parent has filed a proper petition under the statute. Only where the relocating parent files a proper petition may the court order temporary relocation pending final determination. Milton v. Milton, 113 So. 3d 1040. This rule reinforces the threshold procedural function of the petition requirement: a parent who attempts to relocate without filing a proper petition is not entitled to seek a temporary order permitting the relocation, because the very relief the statute authorizes depends on compliance with its procedural prerequisites.
The logical implication of this rule is that a parent who relocates without filing a petition and then seeks to ratify the unauthorized move through a temporary order will be unsuccessful. The court simply has no statutory authority to grant temporary relocation relief in the absence of a properly filed petition. This is one of several ways in which the statute makes noncompliance costly.
Restraining and Return Orders
On the other end of the spectrum, the statute also authorizes the court to protect the nonrelocating parent’s interests before a final determination is made. The court may grant a temporary order restraining the relocation, order the return of the child if relocation has already occurred, or order other appropriate remedial relief. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. These remedies are available under circumstances that include, but are not limited to, a noncompliant petition or relocation that occurred without agreement or court approval.
The availability of a return order is particularly significant in the Miami context, where international relocation is not uncommon given the city’s ties to Latin America and the Caribbean. A parent who removes a child to another country without complying with § 61.13001 may face not only a domestic return order but also the prospect of proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which the United States is a signatory and which Florida courts are authorized to apply.
Calendar Priority and Timing Requirements
The statute imposes mandatory timing requirements designed to give relocation proceedings calendar priority. If a motion seeking a temporary relocation is filed, the hearing must occur no later than thirty days after the filing. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. Additionally, the nonjury trial on the relocation petition must occur no later than ninety days after notice to set trial, absent good cause for a different schedule. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. These deadlines reflect a legislative recognition that relocation disputes cannot linger on a crowded family court docket without causing real harm to both children and parents.
In the Eleventh Judicial Circuit serving Miami-Dade County, family law cases are assigned to specialized divisions, and judges who handle these matters are generally familiar with the expedited scheduling requirements of § 61.13001. Nevertheless, ensuring that a case receives the calendar priority the statute mandates often requires active advocacy from counsel. A Miami parental relocation attorney who understands the local court’s administrative practices can make a meaningful difference in how quickly a client’s case is scheduled.
Burdens of Proof and the Best Interest of the Child Framework
When a relocation petition is contested and the case proceeds to a merits hearing, the statute prescribes a burden-shifting framework governed by the preponderance of the evidence standard. Understanding this framework is essential for any Florida parental relocation attorney preparing a client for trial.
The Relocating Parent’s Initial Burden
The parent wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. Once that burden is met, it shifts to the nonrelocating parent to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interest. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. This sequential burden-shifting structure means that the relocating parent must affirmatively make the case for relocation before the nonrelocating parent is required to respond with countervailing evidence.
No Presumption For or Against Relocation
Critically, the statute begins the merits inquiry with a level evidentiary playing field. The court begins with no presumption in favor of or against a parent’s request to relocate. Hull v. Hull, 273 So. 3d 1135. This no-presumption rule distinguishes the merits stage from the procedural stage, where a failure to object does create a presumption in favor of relocation. At the merits stage, neither the relocating parent nor the nonrelocating parent starts with a structural advantage simply by virtue of their role in the dispute. The outcome depends entirely on the evidence.
The Statutory Best Interest Factors
In determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child, the court must consider a nonexclusive list of factors set forth in § 61.13001, including the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and the nonrelocating parent; the age and developmental stage of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development; the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through substitute arrangements for time-sharing, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties; the child’s preference, taking into account the age and maturity of the child; whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent seeking relocation and the child; the reasons each parent is seeking or opposing the relocation; the current employment and economic circumstances of each parent; and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the relocating parent, including child support, alimony, and marital property and marital debt obligations. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001.
This multifactor framework gives trial courts substantial discretion in how they weigh the evidence, which in turn means that the appellate standard of review is deferential. As discussed below, relocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed if the statutory findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235. From a litigation strategy perspective, this means that building a compelling factual record at trial is absolutely critical. A well-supported evidentiary record that addresses each statutory factor is the foundation on which a successful relocation ruling, or a successful opposition ruling, must rest.
Timing and Evidentiary Standards for Best Interest Determinations
One of the more technically significant aspects of the best interest inquiry under § 61.13001 is the requirement that the determination be made at the time of the final hearing and supported by competent, substantial evidence. Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So. 3d 454. This temporal requirement has real consequences for how cases are tried. Evidence that was true at the time of the petition but has since changed may be less probative than current evidence offered at trial. Similarly, speculative or future-focused testimony that does not connect the proposed relocation to present, provable circumstances is unlikely to satisfy the competent, substantial evidence standard.
For Miami parental relocation attorneys, the Arthur standard underscores the importance of updating client file information continuously through the pretrial phase and ensuring that trial exhibits, witness testimony, and expert opinions reflect the child’s actual circumstances at the time of the final hearing rather than conditions that existed months earlier when the petition was first filed.
Consequences of Noncompliance and the Primacy of Child Welfare
Perhaps no aspect of § 61.13001 is more frequently litigated than the consequences that flow from a parent who relocates in violation of the statute. The plain text of the statute and the appellate case law interpreting it both make clear that noncompliance has meaningful legal consequences, while also establishing an important limit on how those consequences may be deployed in subsequent proceedings.
Contempt and Return Orders as Primary Enforcement Tools
There are two potential consequences to relocating in violation of the statute. First, the party in violation is subject to contempt proceedings. Second, and relatedly, the court may order the return of the child or order other appropriate remedial relief. Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So. 3d 487. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. These twin enforcement mechanisms are designed to give courts the practical tools necessary to deter unilateral relocations and to restore the status quo ante when a parent moves without authorization.
A parent who relocates a child without complying with § 61.13001 does so at real risk of being held in contempt of the existing parenting plan or custody order, which may expose that parent to incarceration, fines, attorney’s fees, and adverse adjustments to the time-sharing schedule. Moreover, if the court orders the return of the child, the relocating parent may be required to return the child and reestablish the prior residence while the relocation litigation proceeds, which can impose significant logistical and financial hardship.
How Noncompliance May Be Considered in Subsequent Proceedings
Beyond the immediate contempt and return remedies, the statute also addresses how a parent’s noncompliant relocation may be taken into account in a subsequent relocation or modification proceeding. Florida Statute § 61.13001(3)(e) expressly provides that a parent’s relocation without complying with the statute may be taken into account by the court in any subsequent relocation proceeding or proceeding to modify the parenting plan, as evidence of the parent’s willingness to comply with legal obligations. Edgar v. Firuta, 165 So. 3d 758.
However, the appellate courts have drawn a clear and important boundary around how this evidence may be used. The vindication of the trial court’s authority is subordinate to the child’s welfare. Edgar v. Firuta, 165 So. 3d 758. This means that while a court may consider noncompliant relocation as a factor in its analysis, it cannot allow the desire to punish a contemptuous parent to override the statutory mandate that the child’s best interest is the paramount consideration. In other words, a court that denies a relocation petition primarily as punishment for past noncompliance, rather than because denial is in the child’s best interest, commits reversible error.
For Miami parental relocation attorneys representing the nonrelocating parent in a case involving a prior unauthorized move, this principle is important to understand. While the noncompliance can and should be presented as evidence of bad faith and disregard for legal obligations, the ultimate argument must be grounded in the child’s best interest rather than retribution. A persuasive opposition to a relocation petition will acknowledge the court’s remedial authority while centering the argument on why the proposed relocation, regardless of how it came about, fails the statutory best interest analysis.
Relocation Proceedings and Their Relationship to Time-Sharing Modification Under § 61.13
One of the more conceptually nuanced areas of Florida parental relocation law involves the relationship between relocation proceedings under § 61.13001 and general time-sharing modification proceedings under § 61.13. Understanding this relationship is essential for Miami parental relocation attorneys who must advise clients on both the relocation petition and any ancillary modification issues that may arise.
The Distinction Between Relocation and Modification
Florida appellate courts have recognized a clear distinction between modification based on changed circumstances under § 61.13(3) and relocation under § 61.13001. Fosshage v. Fosshage, 167 So. 3d 525. This distinction is not merely semantic. Under the general modification framework of § 61.13(3), a party seeking to modify a parenting plan must demonstrate a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances since the entry of the existing order, plus a best interest finding. Under § 61.13001, by contrast, the relocating parent does not need to demonstrate a change in circumstances; the statute establishes its own independent framework for evaluating the proposed relocation based on the statutory best interest factors discussed above.
The consequence of this distinction is that a parent seeking to relocate need not satisfy the modification standard of § 61.13(3) as a precondition to obtaining court approval for the move. The relocation statute provides its own stand-alone procedure and best interest framework that operates independently of the general modification standard. Conversely, a nonrelocating parent who seeks to use a proposed relocation as a basis for modifying the time-sharing schedule must do so through the appropriate statutory pathway, which may require satisfying the changed circumstances standard if the relocation itself is not ultimately approved.
Time-Sharing Modification When Relocation Is Approved
When a court approves relocation, the relocation statute specifically anticipates that the court will modify the parties’ time-sharing schedule to reflect the realities of the distance involved. The relocation statute anticipates that the court will modify the parties’ time-sharing schedule. Saponara v. Saponara, 261 So. 3d 570. This modification occurs within the relocation proceeding itself and does not require a separate petition for modification. The court adjusts the time-sharing plan as part of the order approving relocation, ensuring that the nonrelocating parent retains meaningful contact with the child despite the geographic distance.
In practice, this means that Miami parental relocation attorneys representing relocating parents should prepare a proposed modified time-sharing schedule as part of the relocation petition. The proposed schedule should reflect realistic travel logistics between Miami and the intended destination, and should be supported by evidence addressing the nonrelocating parent’s ability and willingness to exercise extended but less frequent time-sharing.
Time-Sharing Modification When Relocation Is Denied
The situation becomes more procedurally complex when relocation is denied. At least one Florida appellate decision has held that the relocation statute makes no provision for the trial court to modify time-sharing when the parent’s relocation is not approved. Ward v. Waters, 389 So. 3d 652. The implication of this ruling is that a party seeking to modify time-sharing in connection with a denied relocation petition may need to file a separate, standalone motion for modification under § 61.13(3) in order to obtain relief. Simply having a relocation petition denied does not automatically trigger the court’s authority to reconfigure the existing time-sharing schedule.
This potential procedural trap is something that any competent Florida parental relocation attorney should anticipate. A nonrelocating parent who has successfully opposed a relocation petition and also wants to seek an increase in his or her own time-sharing should be prepared to file a separate modification motion, supported by evidence satisfying the § 61.13(3) changed circumstances standard. Failing to do so may result in the case being resolved without the time-sharing adjustment that the nonrelocating parent was hoping to achieve.
Standard of Appellate Review in Florida Parental Relocation Cases
Appeals of relocation decisions in Florida are governed by the abuse of discretion standard. On appeal, the court reviews the trial court’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard, and the ruling is affirmed if the statutory findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235. This deferential standard of review has important strategic implications for both parties.
For the relocating parent who obtains a favorable ruling at trial, the abuse of discretion standard means that the ruling is unlikely to be reversed on appeal unless the nonrelocating parent can demonstrate that the trial court made a clear error of law, exceeded its authority, or reached a factual conclusion that is utterly unsupported by the record. A well-developed trial record with competent, substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings will generally survive appellate scrutiny, even if a different judge might have reached a different result on the same facts.
Conversely, for the nonrelocating parent who loses at trial, the abuse of discretion standard means that an appeal is not a second bite at the apple. An appellate court reviewing a relocation ruling will not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court simply because the outcome was unfavorable. The appellate record must affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, which is a demanding standard to satisfy.
These appellate realities underscore, once again, why the trial itself is the critical battlefield in relocation litigation. A skilled Miami parental relocation attorney understands that the outcome at the trial court level will almost certainly be the final outcome of the case, and plans accordingly.
Miami-Specific Considerations in Florida Parental Relocation Cases
Miami-Dade County presents a unique set of factual and logistical considerations in parental relocation cases that distinguish the local practice from relocation litigation in other parts of Florida. Understanding these local dynamics is part of what a Miami parental relocation attorney brings to the table for clients navigating this area of the law.
First, the international dimension of many Miami relocation cases adds a layer of complexity not present in most domestic relocation disputes. A significant proportion of Miami families have ties to other countries, and relocation petitions involving moves to Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere abroad raise questions about the enforceability of Florida court orders in foreign jurisdictions. A Miami parental relocation attorney advising a client on an international relocation must address not only the requirements of § 61.13001 but also the implications of any applicable international treaties and the practical realities of enforcing time-sharing rights across national borders.
Second, Miami’s economy and job market are subject to rapid changes driven by global financial conditions, real estate cycles, and the tourism and hospitality sectors. A parent’s employment circumstances, which are among the statutory factors the court must consider under § 61.13001, can change quickly in South Florida, and evidence regarding a parent’s economic reasons for relocation must be current and well-documented to be persuasive.
Third, the cultural and linguistic diversity of Miami-Dade County means that parenting plan provisions regarding language, cultural education, and heritage are frequently at issue in relocation cases. A move that would take a bilingual child away from a community where both languages are spoken, or that would separate a child from extended family members who provide significant caregiving, may face particular scrutiny under the statutory factors addressing the child’s developmental needs and the quality of life enhancement the relocation is claimed to provide.
Conclusion
Florida Statute § 61.13001 is one of the most procedurally and substantively demanding statutes in Florida family law. It requires strict compliance with petition-and-service requirements, imposes a burden-shifting best interest framework at the merits stage, provides expedited scheduling and temporary relief mechanisms for both parties, creates meaningful but child-welfare-constrained consequences for noncompliance, and operates independently of the general time-sharing modification standard of § 61.13. For Miami parents navigating a relocation dispute, whether as the parent seeking to move or the parent seeking to prevent a move, the stakes are high and the procedural demands are unforgiving.
The case law surveyed in this article, from Gimonge v. Gimonge, 239 So. 3d 1275, which confirmed the governing statute, to Ward v. Waters, 389 So. 3d 652, which highlighted the procedural gap when relocation is denied, reflects a judiciary that takes § 61.13001 seriously and enforces it faithfully. Miami parents who find themselves in a relocation dispute deserve legal representation from a Florida parental relocation attorney who understands both the letter of the statute and the practical realities of litigating these cases in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.
TLDR: Florida Statute § 61.13001 requires any parent in Miami or across Florida who wants to relocate with a child to either obtain a written agreement from all parties with time-sharing rights or file a sworn petition served on every such person. The court decides contested petitions under a no-presumption, burden-shifting best interest framework, with the relocating parent carrying the initial burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. A parent who relocates without complying with these requirements is subject to contempt, a return order, and adverse consideration in any future relocation or modification proceeding, though child welfare always remains the paramount consideration over punishment.
What is Florida’s parental relocation statute?
Florida Statute § 61.13001 is the governing law for any parent who wishes to relocate with a child to a new principal residence that is at least fifty miles from the current principal residence for at least sixty consecutive days. It applies to virtually all parenting plans and custody orders entered on or after October 1, 2009, and to pre-2009 orders that do not expressly address relocation.
Do I need a court order to move with my child in Florida?
Yes, unless you have a written agreement signed by all persons entitled to access and time-sharing with the child. Absent such an agreement, you must file a petition to relocate with the court and serve it on the other parent and any other person with time-sharing rights before you may relocate. Moving without compliance exposes you to contempt proceedings and a potential court order requiring the return of the child.
What happens if the other parent does not object to my relocation petition in Florida?
If the nonrelocating parent fails to file a timely written response objecting to the relocation, Florida law presumes that the relocation is in the best interest of the child. The court will then generally enter an order permitting the relocation and adopting the time-sharing and transportation terms proposed in the petition, unless good cause exists to proceed to a merits hearing.
Who has the burden of proof in a Florida parental relocation case?
The relocating parent bears the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the child’s best interest. If that burden is met, it shifts to the nonrelocating parent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is not in the child’s best interest. The court begins the merits determination with no presumption in favor of or against the relocation.
How quickly must a Florida court hold a hearing on a relocation motion?
Florida Statute § 61.13001 requires that a hearing on a motion for temporary relocation occur within thirty days of the filing of the motion. The nonjury trial on the relocation petition itself must occur within ninety days after notice to set trial, absent good cause for a different schedule. These deadlines give relocation cases calendar priority over most other family law matters.
Can a parent use an unauthorized relocation as grounds to modify custody in Florida?
A parent’s noncompliant relocation may be considered in subsequent relocation or modification proceedings as evidence of that parent’s willingness to comply with legal obligations. However, the court may not allow the desire to punish noncompliant conduct to override the child’s best interest, which remains the paramount consideration in any determination affecting the child’s welfare.
Is a relocation case the same as a custody modification case in Florida?
No. There is a clear distinction between relocation proceedings under § 61.13001 and modification proceedings under § 61.13(3). Relocation proceedings apply their own statutory best interest framework and do not require the relocating parent to demonstrate a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances. If relocation is denied, a separate modification petition under § 61.13(3) may be required to adjust the time-sharing schedule.
Speak With a Miami Parental Relocation Attorney Today
Relocation disputes involving children are among the most emotionally and legally complex matters in Florida family law. The procedural requirements of § 61.13001 are strict, the timelines are short, and the consequences of a misstep, whether you are the parent seeking to relocate or the parent opposing a proposed move, can be lasting. Waiting to consult with legal counsel until after you have already acted, or after you have already missed a deadline, significantly narrows your options.
The Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC, concentrates exclusively on Florida family law in Miami-Dade and the surrounding counties of South Florida. From our office at 1221 Brickell Avenue in the heart of Miami’s legal district, we represent parents in parental relocation cases at every stage, from initial petition preparation and service through temporary relief hearings and trials. We understand the local rules and judicial expectations of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and we bring that knowledge to bear on every case we handle.
If you are considering relocating with your child, if you have received a relocation petition and need to decide whether and how to respond, or if a parent has already moved without your consent and you need to understand your options, we invite you to contact the Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC today. Your child’s future is too important to navigate without experienced counsel.