thePreSumPtionaGainStreloCation
Marital & Family law Section Chair: MarkF. Baseman – Felix & Baseman, LLC
Section 61.13001( 7), Fla. Stat.,( 2025) 1 provides that a presumption does not arise in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child if a parent seeks to relocate and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and timesharing with the non-relocating parent. The no presumption of or against relocation was created when Section 61.13001 was initially enacted in 2006. Section 61.13001( 7) lists 11 factors( a)-( k) that the court must evaluate in reaching its decision regarding a proposed temporary or permanent relocation. Factor( k) is“ any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13.”
Effective July 1, 2023, Section 61.13( 2)( c) 1. was amended from there being no presumption for or against any specific timesharing schedule to establishing a rebuttal presumption that equal timesharing of a minor child is in the best interest of the minor child, and a parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal timesharing is not in the best interests of the child.
Section 61.13 provides no exception to the presumption of equal timesharing based on a parent’ s request for relocation. Thus, a parent seeking relocation,
therefore, the presumptionofequal timesharingin 61.13( 2)( c) 1. applies whenaparentis seekingtorelocate.
where such relocation would preclude equal timesharing, bears the burden under Section 61.13( 2)( c) 1. to establish that equal timesharing is not in the child’ s best interest. Thus, the presumption against relocation.
Analyzing the best interest of the child, the factors set forth in Section 61.13( 3)( a)-( t), supports the non-relocating parent have majority timesharing because of the factor’ s emphasis on stability, continuity, and the frequent involvement of both parents. For
Continuedonpage53
5 2 M A y- J U N E 2 0 2 6 | H C B A L A W y E R