thePreSumPtionaGainStreloCation
Marital & Family law Section
Continuedfrompage52
example, regarding factor( a) a parent seeking to relocate with the child is not facilitating and encouragin g a close and continuing parent-child relationship by limiting the child’ s time with the nonrelocating parent; factor( c) a parent seeking to relocate is considering and acting on their needs as opposed to their child’ s needs; and factor( d) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity favors the child having majority time with the nonrelocating parent.
In essence, relocation is the antithesis of what is in the best interest of the child. Viewed broadly, relocation seeks to uproot the child’ s entire life by changing their school, extracurricular activities, friendships, and relationships with family members, while simultaneously limiting their time with the non-relocating parent, and placing the child into an unknown environment. Relocation is the opposite of promoting stability, frequent timesharing, and continuity especially when the child and other parent are already exercising equal timesharing.
Therefore, the presumption of equal timesharing in 61.13( 2)( c) 1. applies when a parent is seeking to relocate. The relocating parent will need to rebut the presumption in order to not have an equal timesharing schedule. Further, by seeking to relocate and looking at the factors in Section 61.13( 3), the non-relocating parent has a substantial advantage to have majority timesharing if the parent seeking relocation relocates. n
1
Unless stated otherwise, all sections are Florida Statutes.
Authors: Alex Caballero and Marin Donnelly – Sessums Black, P. A.
M A y- J U N E 2 0 2 6 | H C B A L A W y E R
5 3