Florida

Statutory framework; factor structure: 20.

Authority

Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

20

Operative language

must

Catch-all language

yes, (3)(t)

Presumptions in the original survey

Equal time-sharing rebuttable, § 61.13(2)(c)1

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

(a) "The marriage is irretrievably broken"; (b) mental incapacity adjudged for at least 3 years

Authority

Fla. Stat. § 61.052(1)

Grounds without a misconduct showing

(a) "The marriage is irretrievably broken"; (b) mental incapacity adjudged for at least 3 years

Other grounds and proof conditions

No additional grounds identified.

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

Ordinarily at least 20 days after filing before final judgment; the court may enter judgment earlier upon a showing that the delay would cause injustice (§ 61.19).

Relief without dissolution

No. Support without dissolution only, § 61.09

Compare divorce grounds nationally

The mover must first prove best interests. The burden then shifts to the objector. Harman holds that an evenly balanced record at the second step defeats the objection.

Authority

Fla. Stat. 61.13001

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

burden shifts to the objecting parent after a threshold showing

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

mileage threshold

Effect of silence

yes, qualified

What the court weighs

No presumption for or against relocation (§ 61.13001(7)). The court evaluates eleven statutory factors (§ 61.13001(7)(a)-(k)): the child's relationships. Age and developmental needs. Feasibility of preserving the relationship with the nonrelocating parent. The child's preference. Quality-of-life gain. Each parent's reasons. Economic circumstances. Whether the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled financial obligations to the relocating parent (child support, spousal support, marital property and marital debt). Career and other opportunities for the objecting parent. Substance abuse or domestic violence history. And any other relevant factor. The burden rule in (8) is sequential (see burden).

Who carries the burden

The moving parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation serves the child. If that burden is met, § 61.13001(8) shifts the same burden to the objecting parent to prove that it does not. Section 61.13001(7) disclaims a presumption for or against relocation.

Harman v. Alonso, 425 So. 3d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025), applies the first step to the mover's evidence. At the second step, an evenly balanced record means the objecting parent has failed to carry the shifted burden. If the mover fails the first step, the objector has no burden to carry. A sworn petition alone does not satisfy the first step at an evidentiary hearing.

Notice and safety exceptions

A parent or other person seeking relocation must file a sworn petition and serve the other parent and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child (§ 61.13001(3)(a)–(b)), unless all required persons enter the agreement described in subsection (2). When a relevant action, judgment or decree already exists, subsection (2)(b) directs the parties to seek court ratification of that agreement. The statute sets no minimum number of days before the move.

Which moves trigger the rule

A change of a parent's or other person's principal residence at least 50 miles from the residence at the last time-sharing order (or at filing of the pending action), for at least 60 consecutive days, excluding temporary absences for vacation, education or the child's health care (§ 61.13001(1)(e)). In Ramos v. Hunter (4th DCA 2026), § 61.13001 did not apply where the mother moved the child before the father filed the paternity action; the request was treated as part of the initial time-sharing determination.

Objections and the effect of silence

An objecting response must be written, verified, filed and served within 20 days after service of the petition (§ 61.13001(3)(a)7., (5)). If the other parent and every other person entitled to access or time-sharing fail to file a timely objecting response, the relocation is presumed to be in the child's best interest, and absent good cause the court enters an order adopting the petition's schedule, possibly without a hearing (§ 61.13001(3)(d)). If a response is timely filed, the parent may not relocate without court permission at a temporary hearing or trial. In Fitzgerald v. Dostie (6th DCA 2026), a hearing noticed only for temporary relief did not supply notice for permanent relief; the court affirmed temporary relief and reversed permanent relief for a final hearing.

The modification threshold

Not required for a relocation petition. Only a § 61.13(3) modification requires a substantial and material change (Lally, 4th DCA December 10, 2025). Separately, since ch. 2023-301, if the parents lived more than 50 miles apart at the last order and a parent moves to within 50 miles of the other, that move 'may be considered' a substantial and material change for modifying time-sharing (§ 61.13(3)).

Other qualifications

If the other parent and every other person entitled to access or time-sharing fail to file a timely objecting response, the statute creates a presumption that the relocation is in the child's best interest and should be allowed, and absent good cause the court enters an order adopting the petition's schedule, possibly without an evidentiary hearing (61.13001(3)(d)). Florida also has a reverse-relocation rule: moving to within 50 miles of the other parent can itself support modification.

Important qualification

The mover must first prove best interests. The burden then shifts to the objector. Harman holds that an evenly balanced record at the second step defeats the objection.

Burden summary

Shifting burden

Notice summary

Notice required; no fixed day count

Trigger summary

50 miles, for 60 days or more

Compare parental relocation nationally