Parental Relocation in Florida

A Florida parent who has a time-sharing order and wants to move with the child to a new residence may not simply relocate. Under Florida Statutes § 61.13001, any move of more than 50 miles from the principal residence at the time of the last order, for a period of 60 consecutive days or more, requires either written agreement of the other parent or a court order authorizing the move.

The 50-Mile, 60-Day Rule

Two thresholds trigger the statute. First, the new residence must be more than 50 miles away. Second, the move must last 60 consecutive days or longer. A temporary vacation, even an extended one, does not require relocation procedures. A short move to an adjoining neighborhood does not either. The statute targets moves that materially affect the existing time-sharing schedule.

Written Agreement

If both parents agree to the move, they sign a written relocation agreement that contains the consent of the non-relocating parent, defines a new time-sharing schedule that takes the relocation into account, and addresses transportation arrangements. The agreement must be ratified by the court. Once ratified, it has the force of a court order.

Petition to Relocate

If the other parent does not agree, the relocating parent must file a Petition to Relocate that strictly complies with Florida Statutes § 61.13001(3). The petition must include:

A description of the new location, including the street address if known, the names of any third party at the new residence, and the date of the intended move
A detailed statement of the reasons for the proposed relocation, including any job offer with the salary and benefits documented in writing
A proposed revised time-sharing schedule, including transportation arrangements
A specific statutory notice warning the other parent that an objection must be filed within 20 days or the relocation will be granted by default

Objection and Burden of Proof

The non-relocating parent has 20 days to file a written verified objection that states specific factual reasons. If no timely objection is filed, the court is required to allow the relocation by default unless it finds the relocation is not in the child's best interest.

If an objection is filed, the court holds an evidentiary hearing. The party seeking relocation has the initial burden of proof, then the burden shifts to the objecting parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the child's best interest. The factors in Florida Statutes § 61.13001(7) include the nature of the child's relationships with each parent, the age and developmental stage of the child, the feasibility of preserving the relationship with the non-relocating parent through a substitute schedule, the reasons each party offers, the career and economic implications, and the quality of life the move will provide for the child.

Temporary Relocation Pending Hearing

A parent may seek temporary relocation pending the final hearing, but the standard is high. The court will consider the likelihood that the relocation will be permitted at trial, the harm to the child of remaining in place, and the harm of moving and then having to move back.

The Statutory Notice: What Goes In, and What Happens If It Is Wrong

The Petition to Relocate functions as both a pleading and a statutory notice to the non-relocating parent. Florida Statutes § 61.13001(3)(a) requires that the petition contain, in addition to the items listed above, a verification by the petitioner, the home telephone and work telephone of the new residence (if known), the date of the intended relocation, and a proposal for handling transportation between the two homes, including how the cost will be allocated. The statute also requires the petition to incorporate the following statutory warning to the non-relocating parent, in substantially the form set out in § 61.13001(3)(a)7: that if the parent fails to file a verified response in opposition to the petition within 20 days after service, the court shall presume the relocation is in the child's best interest and may allow the relocation without an evidentiary hearing.

Petitions that omit any required element are routinely struck or stayed until amended. We have seen relocation petitions defeated procedurally because the petitioner failed to allege the date of the move, failed to include a specific transportation proposal, or failed to recite the statutory warning verbatim. The 20-day clock does not begin to run on a defective petition.

Agreement Versus Petition: Two Tracks

Section 61.13001 provides two procedural paths. Under § 61.13001(2), the parents may agree in writing to the relocation. The agreement must (a) reflect consent to the relocation, (b) define a time-sharing schedule for the non-relocating parent, and (c) describe, if necessary, transportation arrangements related to time-sharing. Where the agreement is signed by both parents and incorporated into a court order, no evidentiary hearing is required and no specific findings on the best-interest factors are required. The court still must approve the agreement, but approval is largely ministerial absent a red flag. Where no agreement is reached, the petitioning parent must proceed under § 61.13001(3) and obtain an order after a contested hearing.

The Objection: Specific Facts, Not Boilerplate

The non-relocating parent has 20 days from service to file a verified response. The response is not a denial in the sense of a normal civil pleading. Section 61.13001(3)(b) requires that the response state the specific factual basis supporting the reasons for seeking a prohibition of the relocation, including a statement of the amount of participation or involvement the objecting parent currently has or has had in the life of the child. A response that merely says "denied" is legally insufficient and may be treated as a non-response, with the petition granted by default. Effective objections recite the day-to-day routine of the objecting parent with the child, list the meaningful activities -- school dropoff, homework supervision, weekend coaching, religious instruction, medical appointments -- and explain in concrete terms what the child would lose if the move were allowed.

Temporary Relocation Pending Final Hearing

A relocating parent who cannot wait months for a final hearing may move for temporary relocation under § 61.13001(6). The court must consider the likelihood of ultimate success at the final hearing, along with the harm of delay measured against the harm of permitting the child to be moved and possibly returned. Temporary relocations are not routine. A parent with a verifiable job offer that requires immediate relocation, a parent who is moving with a new military-deployed spouse, or a parent whose housing has fallen through has a better chance than a parent whose stated reasons are aspirational. The court may condition temporary relocation on additional time-sharing for the non-relocating parent during the pendency of the case, payment of transportation costs by the relocating parent, or posting of a bond.

The Eleven Best-Interest Factors

Florida Statutes § 61.13001(7) sets out eleven factors -- distinct from the 20 best-interest factors in § 61.13(3) -- that the court must consider at a contested hearing:

The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life.
The age and developmental stage of the child, the child's needs, 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.
The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through a substitute time-sharing arrangement, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the logistics of long-distance contact.
The child's preference, if of sufficient age and maturity.
Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent seeking the relocation and the child, including financial, emotional, and educational opportunities.
The reasons each parent is seeking or opposing the relocation.
The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent, and whether the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the relocating parent.
That the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the relocating parent.
The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent if relocation occurs.
A history of substance abuse or domestic violence as defined in § 741.28 or which meets the criteria of § 39.806(1)(d), by either parent.
Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in § 61.13.

Burden of Proof and the No-Presumption Rule

Section 61.13001(8) is unusually emphatic. It directs that the burden of proof at a contested final hearing is on the parent seeking to relocate, by a preponderance of the evidence. Once the petitioner makes a prima facie showing under the eleven factors, the burden shifts to the objecting parent to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is not in the child's best interest. The statute also expressly provides that there is no presumption in favor of -- or against -- the relocation. Florida appellate courts have repeatedly reversed orders that imported a presumption (commonly, the older "primary residential parent should ordinarily be permitted to move" presumption) into a § 61.13001 analysis. The trial court must weigh the evidence on the statutory factors and make written findings supporting each.

Common Scenarios

Out-of-state job offer. The strongest case is documented: a written offer with salary, benefits, and start date; an inability to find comparable employment in South Florida; a school for the child identified and researched; and a proposed time-sharing schedule that makes economic sense (for example, extended summer and winter break blocks for the non-relocating parent, plus monthly weekends paid for by the moving parent).
Remarriage and household relocation. A parent who has remarried and seeks to join a new spouse in another state must show that the relocation reflects a genuine household change, not a tactical move. Courts ask why the new spouse cannot relocate to South Florida; the answer is sometimes obvious (the new spouse owns a business or has children of his or her own with a fixed time-sharing order) and sometimes thin.
Family support. A parent who needs to move closer to grandparents, siblings, or extended family for childcare and emotional support has a sympathetic but factually-driven case. The court looks at the existing local support network, the relocating parent's economic ability to remain in Florida, and the specific role the extended family will play.
Military orders. Active-duty parents reassigned by the military have additional protections under § 61.13002. Temporary modification of time-sharing during deployment is mandated by statute, and the deploying parent may designate a family member to exercise time-sharing during the deployment. Permanent change-of-station orders, however, still require either consent or a § 61.13001 petition.
Domestic-violence escape. A parent who is leaving an abusive relationship may seek relocation under § 61.13001 in addition to seeking an injunction. The court considers the credibility of the safety concern, the existence and terms of any injunction, and whether the move is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety of the parent and child.

Financial and Logistical Provisions

A long-distance time-sharing schedule is expensive. The order should allocate the cost of airline tickets (including unaccompanied-minor service fees), mileage, lodging during exchanges if applicable, and the relocating parent's contribution to the non-relocating parent's travel. The standard allocation is that the parent who chose to move bears the larger share of transportation cost. The order should also address virtual time-sharing under § 61.13001(9) and § 61.13(2)(b)2.d -- scheduled video calls, the technology to be used, and the rule for makeup calls when one parent's connection fails. Virtual contact does not substitute for in-person time-sharing, but a well-drafted virtual-contact provision preserves the day-to-day relationship between visits.

What Not to Do: Unauthorized Relocation

A parent who relocates with the child more than 50 miles without consent or court approval is in violation of § 61.13001 from the day of the move. The consequences are severe and well-established in Florida appellate decisions. The court may order the child returned to Florida immediately, modify time-sharing to designate the non-moving parent as the majority parent, find the relocating parent in civil contempt, impose a civil-contempt purge amount, award the non-moving parent's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and consider the unauthorized move as a factor weighing against the moving parent's credibility and judgment in any subsequent best-interest analysis. In some Florida appellate cases, an unauthorized relocation has formed the basis for a substantial change-of-circumstance modification giving the non-moving parent the majority of time-sharing. A move that might have been approved on a properly-filed petition can be defeated by the act of moving first.

Appellate Review

Relocation orders are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, but Florida appellate courts have not hesitated to reverse when the trial court (a) failed to make written findings on each of the eleven statutory factors, (b) imported a presumption that the statute prohibits, (c) granted relocation without an evidentiary hearing where a timely objection was filed, or (d) granted relocation on the basis of speculative or unsupported testimony about the new location. The written-findings requirement is the single most common ground for reversal. Both relocating and objecting parents should request specific written findings on the record at the close of the final hearing, and propose findings in writing if the court invites them.

Practical Advice

If you are considering relocation, gather your documentation before you file: written job offer, school research, housing arrangement, cost comparison, proposed time-sharing schedule, and a budget showing how transportation between the homes will be funded. If you have been served with a Petition to Relocate, calendar the 20-day deadline immediately and prepare a detailed verified response. In either role, file early, file completely, and treat the eleven statutory factors as a checklist of evidence you will need to put on at the final hearing.

Call 786-522-1411 to discuss your Florida relocation case, whether you are seeking to move or opposing a move.