16 Mar Object to Relocation in Florida Family Court
Summary
Florida law requires a non-relocating parent to file a timely, verified objection to a relocation petition under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 or face a statutory presumption that relocation is in the child's best interest. This article explains the procedural deadlines, the factor-based best-interest analysis, and the burden-shifting framework that govern relocation disputes in Florida family court.
When one parent in a Florida custody case announces a plan to move away with a child, the other parent faces one of the most consequential decisions in family law litigation. Objecting to relocation in Florida family court is not simply a matter of filing a disagreement; it involves strict statutory deadlines, a detailed factor-by-factor best-interest analysis, and a carefully structured burden-shifting framework, all governed by Fla. Stat. § 61.13001. For parents in Miami and throughout Miami-Dade County, understanding these procedural and substantive requirements can mean the difference between preserving a meaningful relationship with a child and watching that relationship erode across hundreds or thousands of miles. This article provides an examination of the law governing relocation objections in Florida, with particular attention to the procedural steps a non-relocating parent must take, the evidentiary standards that apply at hearing, and the strategic considerations that shape effective litigation of these disputes.
Understanding Florida’s Relocation Statute
Florida’s relocation framework is codified entirely within Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, a statute that governs the procedure, timing, substantive analysis, and consequences of any relocation that would materially affect a child’s existing time-sharing schedule. Before analyzing the mechanics of objecting to a proposed relocation, it is essential to understand what constitutes a relocation subject to the statute’s requirements and why the law is structured as it is.
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, a relocation is defined as a change in the principal residence of a parent or other person from whom a child receives court-ordered time-sharing, provided that the change involves a distance of at least fifty miles from the principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, and the change is intended to be for at least sixty consecutive days. This definition is deliberately broad to capture the full range of moves that could disrupt a child’s established connections, and it is this breadth that explains the statute’s comprehensive procedural machinery.
The statute creates a two-track system. When a proposed relocation would not materially affect the schedule of contact and time-sharing with a non-relocating parent, the parties may handle the matter by written agreement. However, when the proposed move would materially affect the existing time-sharing arrangement, the statute’s full procedural apparatus applies, and the relocating parent must file a formal petition that complies with specified content and service requirements. It is this second track, where the move would actually disrupt the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent, that gives rise to the objection process examined in this article.
Florida courts have consistently emphasized that the purpose of Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 is to protect the parent-child relationship while also affording parents reasonable flexibility to manage their lives. As the Third District Court of Appeal recognized in C.G. v. M.M., 310 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the statute sets out specific factors the trial court must consider in determining best interests, and the appellate court acknowledged the burden-shifting framework that the statute establishes. The structure of the law reflects a legislative judgment that relocation disputes require careful judicial scrutiny rather than either automatic approval or automatic denial.
The Critical Importance of a Timely Objection to Relocation
Why Timing Is Everything in Florida Relocation Cases
Perhaps no aspect of Florida’s relocation statute is more consequential for a non-relocating parent than the timing requirement for filing an objection. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 creates a statutory presumption that operates automatically and harshly against any parent who fails to file a timely objection to a relocation petition. Specifically, the statute provides that if the non-relocating parent and any other person entitled to access or time-sharing does not file a response objecting to the relocation within the time period provided by law (20 days after service), the relocation is presumed to be in the child’s best interest.
A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION OBJECTING TO RELOCATION MUST BE MADE IN WRITING, FILED WITH THE COURT, AND SERVED ON THE PARENT OR OTHER PERSON SEEKING TO RELOCATE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS PETITION TO RELOCATE. IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY OBJECT TO THE RELOCATION, THE RELOCATION WILL BE ALLOWED, UNLESS IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE AND WITHOUT A HEARING.
The consequences of this presumption are severe. When the presumption arises, the court is directed, absent a showing of good cause, to enter an order allowing the relocation and adopting the proposed time-sharing schedule and transportation terms that the relocating parent submitted with the petition. Critically, the court may enter this order without conducting an evidentiary hearing. For a non-relocating parent who perhaps misunderstood the significance of the petition, failed to engage an attorney promptly, or was otherwise unable to respond in time, the statutory presumption can result in a legally binding relocation order with no opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
This structure reflects a deliberate legislative choice. The Florida Legislature designed the statute to create firm deadlines that prevent delay and strategic non-response while also providing a clear pathway for prompt resolution of relocation disputes. For the objecting parent and the attorneys who represent them, the lesson is unambiguous: the moment a relocation petition is served, the clock is running, and securing timely legal representation and filing a verified objection is the single most important step in the entire litigation.
What a Proper Objection to Relocation Must Include
Filing a timely objection is necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own. Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, the objecting parent must file a response that meets the statutory requirements in terms of form and content. The response must be verified, meaning that the objecting parent must attest under oath to the truth of the allegations contained in the document. This verification requirement is not a mere formality; it subjects the objecting parent to the legal consequences of submitting a false statement under oath and adds credibility to the factual allegations in the response.
In addition to the verification requirement, the response should set forth the grounds on which the objecting parent opposes the relocation and should identify the statutory best-interest factors that weigh against approval of the move. The response is not simply a reflexive denial of the relocating parent’s petition; rather, it is the foundational document through which the non-relocating parent frames the issues that will be litigated at the evidentiary hearing. Attorneys handling relocation matters in Miami-Dade County family court should treat the initial response with the same strategic care as a pleading in any complex civil litigation.
Once a timely, verified objection is filed, the statute’s protective mechanism for the non-relocating parent immediately springs into effect. Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 provides that after a proper objection is filed, the relocating parent may not relocate with the child unless and until the court grants permission to do so, either through a temporary relocation order following a preliminary hearing or through a final order entered after a nonjury trial. This prohibition is a powerful tool for the objecting parent because it maintains the status quo and prevents the relocating parent from presenting the court with a fait accompli.
The Best-Interest Framework: No Presumption For or Against Relocation
Florida’s Neutral Starting Point in Relocation Disputes
Once a timely objection is filed and the case proceeds to hearing, the substantive analysis begins. Florida’s relocation statute is notable for what it does not do: it does not create any presumption in favor of or against relocation when the proposed move would materially affect the schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the non-relocating parent. This neutral starting point is fundamental to the fairness of the statutory framework. Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, neither parent begins with an advantage simply by virtue of being the one who wants to move or the one who wants to stay.
Instead, the court is directed to conduct a comprehensive best-interest analysis using the specific factors enumerated in the statute. This approach reflects Florida’s broader commitment to the best-interest standard as the lodestar of all child custody and time-sharing determinations. The relocation context simply applies that same standard with a specialized set of factors designed to address the particular dynamics of geographic separation. For Miami-Dade County families, where international connections are common and a proposed relocation may involve a move not just to another state but to another country, this factor-based analysis provides a structured framework for examining the full complexity of the situation.
The Statutory Best-Interest Factors in Relocation Cases
The factors that a Florida court must consider in ruling on a relocation request under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 are extensive and encompass every significant dimension of the parent-child relationship and the circumstances surrounding the proposed move. Understanding these factors is essential for any parent objecting to a relocation because the objection must be organized and supported with evidence that speaks directly to each relevant factor.
Among the factors that the court must evaluate is the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent or other person proposing the relocation and with the non-relocating parent. This factor invites both parties to present evidence about the depth and texture of their relationships with the child, including the history of involvement in the child’s education, healthcare, extracurricular activities, and daily life. For the objecting parent, this factor presents an opportunity to demonstrate through documentary evidence and witness testimony the extent to which the child’s life is intertwined with the non-relocating parent’s presence.
The court must also consider the age, developmental stage, and needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child. This factor is particularly significant in Miami, where children may have deeply established networks of extended family, cultural connections, and educational relationships that a relocation would disrupt. Expert testimony from child psychologists or developmental specialists can be particularly valuable in addressing this factor at an evidentiary hearing.
Perhaps the most hotly contested factor in many relocation disputes is the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through substitute arrangements, taking into consideration the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 requires the court to consider not just whether some form of substitute contact is theoretically possible but whether it is practically feasible given the parties’ economic circumstances and the realities of the proposed distance. For a non-relocating parent in Miami, a proposed move to another state or country may make extended summer visits or holiday time-sharing manageable, but it cannot replicate the day-to-day involvement that the statute also requires the court to consider.
The court must further examine the child’s preference if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. This factor recognizes the child’s agency in a manner appropriate to the child’s maturity, though it does not give the child a veto over the court’s determination. Related to this factor is the court’s consideration of whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent, including but not limited to financial or emotional benefits or educational opportunities. The statute thus acknowledges that a parent’s quality of life is not irrelevant, even while keeping the child’s best interest at the center of the analysis.
Additional factors that the court must weigh include the reasons each parent has for seeking or opposing the relocation, the current employment and economic circumstances of each parent, and whether the objection to the relocation is intended to thwart or prevent the relocating parent from seeking employment opportunities or an enhanced quality of life. The statute also directs the court to consider whether the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the child, including child support and related costs. Furthermore, the court must evaluate any history of substance abuse or domestic violence by either parent.
Finally, and importantly for the comprehensive nature of the best-interest inquiry, Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 provides that the court must consider any other factor affecting the best interest of the child. This catch-all provision ensures that the analysis is not mechanically limited to the enumerated factors but encompasses the full picture of the child’s circumstances and needs. For attorneys litigating relocation cases in Miami-Dade County, the breadth of this factor creates both a challenge and an opportunity: the challenge of covering all relevant ground, and the opportunity to present any compelling evidence about the child’s best interest that does not fit neatly within the specific enumerated factors.
Burden of Proof and the Burden-Shifting Framework
How the Burden Operates at a Relocation Hearing
One of the most important structural features of Florida’s relocation statute is its burden-shifting framework, which governs how the parties must present their cases at an evidentiary hearing. Understanding this framework is essential for both the strategic preparation of the objecting parent’s case and the proper structuring of argument and evidence at trial.
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, the relocating parent bears the initial burden at the merits hearing. Specifically, the relocating parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the child’s best interest. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the relocating parent to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that relocation would serve the child’s best interest when the statutory factors are applied. This is not a trivial burden, and courts applying C.G. v. M.M., 310 So. 3d 977, have confirmed that the trial court must conduct a genuine factor-based analysis rather than simply accepting the relocating parent’s characterization of the benefits of the proposed move.
Only if and when the relocating parent satisfies this initial burden does the burden shift to the objecting parent. At that point, the non-relocating parent must prove, also by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interest. The burden shift thus creates two distinct phases of the hearing, each governed by the same evidentiary standard but assigned to a different party.
Strategic Implications of the Burden-Shifting Framework
The burden-shifting structure of Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 has significant strategic implications for the non-relocating parent’s preparation. On one hand, the fact that the relocating parent bears the initial burden means that the objecting parent can, to some extent, take a responsive posture at the outset of the hearing, challenging the sufficiency and credibility of the relocating parent’s evidence before presenting affirmative case. On the other hand, the practical realities of family court litigation, particularly in Miami-Dade County where judges handle heavy dockets and favor efficient presentations, generally favor a non-relocating parent who comes to the hearing with a fully developed affirmative case rather than relying solely on cross-examination of the relocating parent’s witnesses.
Accordingly, effective representation of a non-relocating parent requires preparing the case on two parallel tracks. The first track involves a thorough analysis of the relocating parent’s evidence against each of the statutory best-interest factors, identifying weaknesses, inconsistencies, and factual disputes that can be exposed through cross-examination and rebuttal evidence. The second track involves the affirmative development of the objecting parent’s own case, marshaling evidence that demonstrates why the child’s best interest is served by remaining in the current location and why the existing time-sharing arrangement serves the child’s developmental, educational, and emotional needs.
Furthermore, the burden-shifting framework interacts with the evidentiary record in a way that makes thorough discovery and pretrial preparation indispensable. Because the relocating parent presents first, the objecting parent’s attorneys must anticipate the likely contours of the relocating parent’s case, identify the weaknesses in that case, and prepare evidence that directly addresses the statutory factors. This requires early engagement with the litigation process, including the use of discovery tools available under the Florida Rules of Family Law Procedure to obtain documentation about the proposed new location, the relocating parent’s employment and financial circumstances, and the educational and healthcare options available to the child at the proposed destination.
Opposing a Temporary Relocation Order
The Two-Prong Standard for Temporary Relocation
In many relocation cases, the relocating parent will not simply file a petition and wait for a final hearing months later. Instead, the relocating parent may seek a temporary relocation order that would permit the move to occur on a provisional basis pending the final merits hearing. For the objecting parent, opposing a temporary relocation request is often just as important as prevailing at the final hearing, because a temporary relocation that is permitted to continue for an extended period can create factual circumstances that complicate the ultimate determination at trial.
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, a court may grant a temporary order permitting relocation pending the final hearing, but only if the court makes two specific findings. First, the court must find that the petition for relocation was properly filed and that it complies with the content and service requirements of the statute. Second, the court must find, based on the evidence presented at a preliminary hearing, that there is a likelihood that the court will approve the relocation at the final hearing, with that likelihood supported by the same factual basis required for final approval. These two requirements are not mere formalities; they impose a genuine preliminary merits review before any temporary relocation is permitted.
Strategies for Opposing Temporary Relocation in Miami-Dade County
For the objecting parent, the first prong of the temporary relocation standard provides an opportunity to challenge any procedural defects in the relocating parent’s petition before reaching the merits. If the petition does not comply with the specific content requirements of Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, such as failing to include all required information about the proposed new location, the proposed transportation arrangements, or the proposed revised time-sharing schedule, the objecting parent can argue that the court lacks the statutory authority to enter a temporary relocation order.
The second prong, which requires a likelihood of ultimate approval based on the merits, is where the substantive battle over temporary relocation is fought. Because the statute ties the temporary standard to the same factual basis required for final approval, the objecting parent must essentially present at the temporary hearing the same quality of evidence that will be needed at the final trial. This can be challenging given the typically compressed timeline of a temporary hearing, but it is also an opportunity: if the objecting parent can persuade the court at the temporary stage that the relocating parent has not demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing at trial, the court must deny the temporary relocation request, and the relocating parent must remain in place pending the final hearing.
From a practical standpoint in Miami-Dade County family court proceedings, the temporary hearing also serves as a preview of each party’s evidence and arguments. Objecting parents and their attorneys should treat the temporary hearing as an opportunity not just to oppose temporary relocation but also to evaluate the strength of the relocating parent’s case, identify gaps in the evidence, and refine the strategy for the final merits hearing.
Priority Scheduling and the Use of Statutory Timing Provisions
Florida’s relocation statute does not merely establish substantive standards; it also contains important procedural provisions governing the timing and scheduling of relocation hearings. Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 provides that an evidentiary hearing or nonjury trial on temporary or permanent relocation relief should receive priority on the court’s calendar. The statute includes specified timeframes for the scheduling of hearings on temporary relocation motions and for the setting of nonjury trials after the required notice period.
These priority scheduling provisions are a significant tool for the objecting parent, and their strategic importance should not be underestimated. In a busy jurisdiction like Miami-Dade County, where the family court division handles an enormous volume of cases, the ordinary pace of litigation can result in substantial delay before a relocation petition is heard on its merits. Such delay can be acutely harmful to the objecting parent because the passage of time without judicial resolution may create de facto circumstances that favor the relocating parent, particularly if the relocating parent has already taken steps to establish a new life at the proposed destination.
By actively invoking the priority scheduling provisions of Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, the objecting parent’s attorney can request that the court set the relocation matter on an expedited basis and resist any attempts by the relocating parent to delay the proceedings. Conversely, the objecting parent should be alert to any strategic delay tactics by the relocating parent, such as requests for continuances or discovery disputes that are designed to push the hearing date further into the future. The statutory mandate for priority scheduling provides a principled basis for opposing such delays.
Additionally, the priority scheduling framework underscores the importance of early legal engagement for any non-relocating parent who receives a relocation petition. Because the statute contemplates prompt adjudication of these disputes, the objecting parent who acts quickly to retain counsel, file a verified objection, and begin the process of gathering evidence will be in the strongest possible position when the court turns its attention to the case.
Practical Litigation Considerations for Miami-Dade County Relocation Cases
Evidence Gathering and Case Development
Successfully objecting to a relocation in Miami-Dade County family court requires not just a mastery of the statute but also a disciplined approach to evidence gathering and case development. The best-interest factors enumerated in Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 are broad and multifaceted, and each factor requires a specific body of evidence to address it persuasively. For the objecting parent, this typically means compiling documentation of the existing parent-child relationship, including school records that reflect the non-relocating parent’s involvement, medical records, photographs, communication records, and testimony from teachers, coaches, healthcare providers, and family members who can attest to the nature and depth of the relationship.
In Miami, where many families have significant international ties, relocation cases sometimes involve proposed moves to other countries rather than simply to another state. These international relocation cases present additional complexities under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, including questions about the enforceability of any revised time-sharing order in the destination country and the feasibility of international travel for both the child and the non-relocating parent. The objecting parent in an international relocation case should be prepared to present evidence about these practical realities as part of the best-interest analysis, because the court’s consideration of substitute arrangements must account for the actual logistics and financial burdens involved.
The Role of Expert Witnesses in Relocation Hearings
Expert testimony can play a critical role in relocation hearings, particularly with respect to the factors involving the child’s developmental needs and the likely impact of the relocation on the child’s emotional and psychological wellbeing. Child psychologists and social workers who have conducted custody evaluations or who have direct professional knowledge of the child and the family can provide the court with expert analysis of how the proposed relocation would affect the child’s development and what arrangements would best serve the child’s needs.
In cases where the parties dispute the feasibility or adequacy of the proposed substitute time-sharing arrangements, economic experts or travel logistics specialists may be called upon to quantify the practical burdens of long-distance parenting. Similarly, in cases involving a proposed relocation for employment purposes, expert testimony about the job market, the relocating parent’s professional qualifications, and the availability of comparable employment in the current location may be relevant to the court’s assessment of whether the relocation is truly necessary and whether the economic rationale genuinely benefits the child.
Addressing Good Faith and the Parties’ Motivations
Among the statutory factors that Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 requires the court to evaluate is the good faith motivation of both parties. Courts applying this factor must assess whether the relocating parent is seeking the move in good faith for legitimate reasons, or whether the relocation is instead designed to interfere with the non-relocating parent’s relationship with the child. Conversely, the court must also consider whether the non-relocating parent’s objection is made in good faith, or whether the objection is intended to thwart a legitimate opportunity for the relocating parent to enhance the family’s quality of life.
For the objecting parent in Miami, evidence bearing on the good faith factor may include communications between the parties about the proposed move, the timing of the relocation announcement relative to other events in the litigation, any history of interference with time-sharing, and evidence about whether the relocating parent made a genuine effort to consult with the other parent before deciding to move. Courts view bad faith relocation attempts seriously, and a non-relocating parent who can present credible evidence that the proposed move is motivated by a desire to undermine the existing custody arrangement rather than by legitimate personal or professional considerations may find that this factor weighs significantly in the objection.
Conclusion
Florida’s relocation statute, codified at Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, establishes a comprehensive and carefully structured framework for resolving one of the most challenging issues in family law: what happens when one parent wants to move away with a child. For non-relocating parents in Miami and throughout Miami-Dade County, the statute’s procedural requirements are as important as its substantive standards. The obligation to file a timely, verified objection is not merely a procedural technicality; it is the gateway to the entire protective framework of the statute, and failure to comply with the timing requirement can result in an automatic presumption favoring relocation and an expedited order with no evidentiary hearing.
Once a proper objection is filed, however, the statute places the parties on an equal footing. There is no presumption for or against relocation, the relocating parent bears the initial burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court must conduct a thorough factor-by-factor best-interest analysis before approving any permanent relocation. The Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in C.G. v. M.M., 310 So. 3d 977, confirms the appellate courts’ commitment to ensuring that trial courts faithfully apply this framework. Meanwhile, the statute’s priority scheduling provisions ensure that these profoundly important decisions are not left to languish on an overcrowded docket.
For any parent in Miami who has received a relocation petition, the time to act is immediately. Retaining experienced Florida family law counsel, filing a timely verified objection, and beginning the process of building a comprehensive best-interest case are the three essential steps that protect the non-relocating parent’s rights and the child’s established relationships. The statutory framework provides powerful tools for the objecting parent; using those tools effectively requires the knowledge, preparation, and strategic sophistication that experienced family law representation provides.
TLDR: To object to relocation in Florida family court, a non-relocating parent must file a timely, verified response to the relocation petition under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 or risk a statutory presumption that relocation is in the child’s best interest; once filed, the court conducts a factor-based best-interest analysis with no presumption for or against relocation, the relocating parent bears the initial burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and hearings receive priority scheduling.
What is the deadline to object to a relocation petition in Florida?
Florida law does not specify a single universal number of days, but Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 sets a strict response window, and failure to file a timely objection triggers an automatic statutory presumption that the relocation is in the child’s best interest. Courts may then enter a relocation order without an evidentiary hearing. Any parent who receives a relocation petition should retain legal counsel and file a verified response immediately.
What happens if I do not object to a relocation petition in Florida?
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, if no timely objection is filed, relocation is presumed to be in the child’s best interest and the court is directed to enter an order permitting the relocation and adopting the relocating parent’s proposed time-sharing and transportation schedule, potentially without holding any evidentiary hearing.
Does Florida favor the relocating parent or the non-relocating parent?
Neither. When a proposed relocation would materially affect the existing time-sharing schedule, Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 expressly provides that no presumption arises in favor of or against relocation. The court applies a neutral best-interest analysis using the statutory factors and the burden-shifting framework.
Who has the burden of proof at a Florida relocation hearing?
The relocating parent bears the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is in the child’s best interest. As recognized by the Third District Court of Appeal in C.G. v. M.M., 310 So. 3d 977, if that burden is met, it then shifts to the non-relocating parent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is not in the child’s best interest.
Can a judge grant temporary relocation before the final hearing?
Yes, but only if the court makes two specific findings under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001: that the petition was properly filed and compliant, and that the evidence at a preliminary hearing demonstrates a likelihood that the court will approve the relocation at final hearing based on the same factual basis required for final approval. Opposing a temporary relocation order is a critical strategic priority for the non-relocating parent.
What factors does a Florida court consider in a relocation case?
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, the court must evaluate a comprehensive list of factors including: the nature and quality of the child’s relationships with each parent; the child’s age, developmental needs, and the likely impact of the move; the feasibility of preserving the non-relocating parent’s relationship through substitute arrangements; the child’s preference if appropriate; whether the relocation will enhance the child’s and relocating parent’s quality of life; the parties’ employment and economic circumstances; each party’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; good faith; compliance with financial obligations; any history of substance abuse or domestic violence; and any other factor affecting the child’s best interest.
Are relocation cases given priority scheduling in Florida?
Yes. Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 provides that evidentiary hearings and nonjury trials on temporary and permanent relocation relief should receive priority on the court’s calendar, with specific timeframes applicable to temporary relocation hearings and to nonjury trials after notice. Non-relocating parents and their attorneys can use these provisions to request expedited hearing settings and resist unnecessary delay.
Is a relocation objection relevant in Miami-Dade County cases?
Absolutely. Miami-Dade County family courts apply Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 in all relocation disputes, including those involving proposed international relocations, which are particularly common given Miami’s diverse international community. The factor-based best-interest analysis must account for the practical realities of the proposed new location, including travel logistics, the enforceability of time-sharing orders, and the child’s established community ties in Miami.
Speak with a Miami Family Law Attorney About Relocation Today
If you have received a relocation petition or are facing a proposed move that will affect your time-sharing rights, the time to act is now. The attorneys at the Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC help parents throughout Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County navigate the complex requirements of Florida’s relocation statute. With extensive experience in Florida family law litigation, including relocation hearings, temporary relocation proceedings, and full evidentiary trials, our firm is prepared to protect your relationship with your child at every stage of the process.
We understand the urgency of relocation cases and the irreplaceable value of a parent’s presence in a child’s life. Our attorneys bring a thorough command of Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 and the appellate decisions that shape its application to every case we handle. Whether you need to file an immediate objection, oppose a temporary relocation motion, or prepare for a final evidentiary hearing, we are ready to assist.
Contact the Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC today to schedule a confidential consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the heart of Brickell, Miami’s premier professional district, and we represent clients in family courts throughout South Florida.