Florida Child Relocation Law: A Treatise on Florida Statute 61.13001

Florida Statute 61.13001 (“Parental relocation with a child”) defines relocation as moving a child more than 50 miles from the child’s “principal place of residence”. The distance is measured in a straight line between two points, without regard to intervening obstacles or the actual route of travel. The relocation must be for a period of 60 days or more, excluding vacations, education, or healthcare needs. The principal place of residence is where the child was living at the time of an order establishing the current time-sharing schedule between the parents or when the lawsuit to establish time-sharing is filed.

Relocation is unrestricted by the statute before the filing of a lawsuit to establish time-sharing; however, if the relocation is in bad faith, it may be addressed by the court when establishing a time-sharing schedule. The relocation statute does not preclude a parent’s relocation but does restrict the child’s relocation.

Petition requirements

If a parent desires to relocate, they must petition the court ‒ under oath ‒ and there are essential pleading requirements, including:

• a description of the intended location upon relocation (including address if known);
• a mailing address if different from the residential address;
• telephone number of proposed address (if known);
• date of intended relocation;
• a detailed statement of reasons for relocation (with an attached written job offer, if any);
• a proposed new time-sharing schedule and proposed transportation arrangements; and
• a statutorily proscribed statement ‒ all in capital letters ‒ warning of the consequences of failing to object to the relocation.

The petition must be served on every person entitled to access or time-sharing with the child. The statute requires specific methods of service in order to ensure proper notice to all affected parties. Failure to provide adequate notice can result in the invalidation of any order granting relocation.

The statute provides for temporary relocation pending final determination of the petition. The court may grant temporary relocation upon a showing that the relocation is in the best interests of the child and that adequate provisions have been made for the non-relocating parent’s continued contact with the child.

As of 1 July 2023, if a parent who lived more than 50 miles away moves within 50 miles, this change allows them to seek a modification of time-sharing for increased access to the child. Transportation costs associated with relocation are considered an aspect of child support and are not determined based upon the parent seeking relocation ‒ rather, they are typically allocated based upon the respective parent’s financial ability.

Substantive standards for relocation

The overarching standard for relocation decisions is the best interests of the child. This standard requires the court to consider all relevant factors and circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, not merely the competing interests of the parents. The court will also consider whether the request for relocation is made in good faith.

Florida Statute 61.13001 establishes specific factors that courts must consider when evaluating relocation petitions. These are:

• the nature, quality and duration of the child’s relationship – as well as the extent of the child’s involvement – with the parent or other person seeking relocation and with the non-relocating parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child’s life;
• the needs, age and developmental stage of the child, as well as 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;
• the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements – considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties;
• the child’s preference – taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;
• whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the requesting parent and the child, including (but not limited to) financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity;
• the reasons why each parent is seeking or opposing the relocation;
• the current employment and economic circumstances of each parent and whether or not the relocation is necessary to improve the financial circumstances of the parent seeking relocation;
• the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled their financial obligations, including child support, spousal support, and any other financial obligations to the parent seeking relocation and the child;
• the career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent;
• a history of substance abuse or domestic violence (as defined in Florida Statute 741.28) or child abuse for either parent;
• the moral fitness of the parties; and
• any other factor affecting the best interests of the child or as set forth in Florida Statute 61.13.

The relocating parent bears the burden of proving that the relocation is in the child’s best interests. There is no presumption favouring or disfavouring relocation. This burden requires clear and convincing evidence in most circumstances ‒ ie, evidence of a higher standard than the typical preponderance of evidence standard used in many family law matters.

Judicial decision-making

Courts must evaluate substantial evidence, including expert testimony, economic evidence, educational opportunities, and family relationships. Credibility determinations are crucial, given subjective factors. When granting relocation, courts craft time-sharing arrangements preserving meaningful parent-child relationships through extended periods, virtual visitation, and appropriate cost allocation.

Key takeaways

Florida Statute 61.13001 represents a comprehensive approach to child relocation that seeks to balance competing interests while maintaining focus on the child’s best interests. The statute provides a structured framework for judicial decision-making while preserving the necessary flexibility to address the unique circumstances of individual cases.

Successful navigation of relocation cases requires a thorough understanding both of the statutory requirements and the developing case law interpreting those requirements. The ultimate goal of the statute is to ensure that children retain meaningful relationships with both parents whenever possible ‒ although it recognises that legitimate relocations may sometimes be necessary and appropriate. The complexity of relocation law requires expertise and experience to navigate successfully, making qualified legal representation critical for all parties involved.