Florida Statute 61.13 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 61.13

61.13 Support of children; parenting and time-sharing; powers of court.—

(1)(a) In a proceeding under this chapter, the court may at any time order either or both parents who owe a duty of support to a child to pay support to the other parent or to a third party who has custody in accordance with the child support guidelines schedule in s. 61.30.

1. All child support orders and income deduction orders entered on or after October 1, 2010, must provide:

a. For child support to terminate on a child’s 18th birthday unless the court finds or previously found that the minor child, or the child who is dependent in fact and between the ages of 18 and 19, is still in high school and is performing in good faith with a reasonable expectation of graduation before he or she reaches the age of 19, or the continued support is otherwise agreed to by the parties;

b. A schedule, based on the record existing at the time of the order, stating the amount of the monthly child support obligation for all the minor children at the time of the order and the amount of child support that will be owed for any remaining children after one or more of the children are no longer entitled to receive child support; and

c. The month, day, and year that the reduction or termination of child support becomes effective.

2. The court initially entering an order requiring one or both parents to make child support payments has continuing jurisdiction after the entry of the initial order to modify the amount and terms and conditions of the child support payments if the modification is found by the court to be in the best interests of the child; the child reaches majority; there is a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties; the minor child, or the child who is dependent in fact and between the ages of 18 and 19, is still in high school and is performing in good faith with a reasonable expectation of graduation before he or she reaches the age of 19; or the child is emancipated, marries, joins the armed services, or dies. The court initially entering a child support order has continuing jurisdiction to require the obligee to report to the court on terms prescribed by the court regarding the disposition of the child support payments.

(b) Each order for support shall contain a provision for health insurance for the minor child when health insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible to the child. Health insurance is presumed to be reasonable in cost if the incremental cost of adding health insurance for the child or children does not exceed 5 percent of the gross income, as defined in s. 61.30, of the parent responsible for providing health insurance. Health insurance is accessible to the child if the health insurance is available to be used in the county of the child’s primary residence or in another county if the parent who has the most time under the time-sharing plan agrees. If the time-sharing plan provides for equal time-sharing, health insurance is accessible to the child if the health insurance is available to be used in either county where the child resides or in another county if both parents agree. The court may require the obligor to provide health insurance or to reimburse the obligee for the cost of health insurance for the minor child when insurance is provided by the obligee. The presumption of reasonable cost may be rebutted by evidence of any of the factors in s. 61.30(11)(a). The court may deviate from what is presumed reasonable in cost only upon a written finding explaining its determination why ordering or not ordering the provision of health insurance or the reimbursement of the obligee’s cost for providing health insurance for the minor child would be unjust or inappropriate. In any event, the court shall apportion the cost of health insurance, and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, to both parties by adding the cost to the basic obligation determined pursuant to s. 61.30(6). The court may order that payment of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the minor child be made directly to the obligee on a percentage basis. In a proceeding for medical support only, each parent’s share of the child’s noncovered medical expenses shall equal the parent’s percentage share of the combined net income of the parents. The percentage share shall be calculated by dividing each parent’s net monthly income by the combined monthly net income of both parents. Net income is calculated as specified by s. 61.30(3) and (4).

1. In a non-Title IV-D case, a copy of the court order for health insurance shall be served on the obligor’s union or employer by the obligee when the following conditions are met:

a. The obligor fails to provide written proof to the obligee within 30 days after receiving effective notice of the court order that the health insurance has been obtained or that application for health insurance has been made;

b. The obligee serves written notice of intent to enforce an order for health insurance on the obligor by mail at the obligor’s last known address; and

c. The obligor fails within 15 days after the mailing of the notice to provide written proof to the obligee that the health insurance existed as of the date of mailing.

2.a. A support order enforced under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act which requires that the obligor provide health insurance is enforceable by the department through the use of the national medical support notice, and an amendment to the support order is not required. The department shall transfer the national medical support notice to the obligor’s union or employer. The department shall notify the obligor in writing that the notice has been sent to the obligor’s union or employer, and the written notification must include the obligor’s rights and duties under the national medical support notice. The obligor may contest the withholding required by the national medical support notice based on a mistake of fact. To contest the withholding, the obligor must file a written notice of contest with the department within 15 business days after the date the obligor receives written notification of the national medical support notice from the department. Filing with the department is complete when the notice is received by the person designated by the department in the written notification. The notice of contest must be in the form prescribed by the department. Upon the timely filing of a notice of contest, the department shall, within 5 business days, schedule an informal conference with the obligor to discuss the obligor’s factual dispute. If the informal conference resolves the dispute to the obligor’s satisfaction or if the obligor fails to attend the informal conference, the notice of contest is deemed withdrawn. If the informal conference does not resolve the dispute, the obligor may request an administrative hearing under chapter 120 within 5 business days after the termination of the informal conference, in a form and manner prescribed by the department. However, the filing of a notice of contest by the obligor does not delay the withholding of premium payments by the union, employer, or health plan administrator. The union, employer, or health plan administrator must implement the withholding as directed by the national medical support notice unless notified by the department that the national medical support notice is terminated.

b. In a Title IV-D case, the department shall notify an obligor’s union or employer if the obligation to provide health insurance through that union or employer is terminated.

3. In a non-Title IV-D case, upon receipt of the order pursuant to subparagraph 1., or upon application of the obligor pursuant to the order, the union or employer shall enroll the minor child as a beneficiary in the group health plan regardless of any restrictions on the enrollment period and withhold any required premium from the obligor’s income. If more than one plan is offered by the union or employer, the child shall be enrolled in the group health plan in which the obligor is enrolled.

4.a. Upon receipt of the national medical support notice under subparagraph 2. in a Title IV-D case, the union or employer shall transfer the notice to the appropriate group health plan administrator within 20 business days after the date on the notice. The plan administrator must enroll the child as a beneficiary in the group health plan regardless of any restrictions on the enrollment period, and the union or employer must withhold any required premium from the obligor’s income upon notification by the plan administrator that the child is enrolled. The child shall be enrolled in the group health plan in which the obligor is enrolled. If the group health plan in which the obligor is enrolled is not available where the child resides or if the obligor is not enrolled in group coverage, the child shall be enrolled in the lowest cost group health plan that is accessible to the child.

b. If health insurance or the obligor’s employment is terminated in a Title IV-D case, the union or employer that is withholding premiums for health insurance under a national medical support notice must notify the department within 20 days after the termination and provide the obligor’s last known address and the name and address of the obligor’s new employer, if known.

5.a. The amount withheld by a union or employer in compliance with a support order may not exceed the amount allowed under s. 303(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673(b), as amended. The union or employer shall withhold the maximum allowed by the Consumer Credit Protection Act in the following order:

(I) Current support, as ordered.

(II) Premium payments for health insurance, as ordered.

(III) Past due support, as ordered.

(IV) Other medical support or insurance, as ordered.

b. If the combined amount to be withheld for current support plus the premium payment for health insurance exceed the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and the health insurance cannot be obtained unless the full amount of the premium is paid, the union or employer may not withhold the premium payment. However, the union or employer shall withhold the maximum allowed in the following order:

(I) Current support, as ordered.

(II) Past due support, as ordered.

(III) Other medical support or insurance, as ordered.

6. An employer, union, or plan administrator who does not comply with the requirements in sub-subparagraph 4.a. is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for the first violation and $500 for subsequent violations, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The department may file a petition in circuit court to enforce the requirements of this subparagraph.

7. The department may adopt rules to administer the child support enforcement provisions of this section that affect Title IV-D cases.

(c) To the extent necessary to protect an award of child support, the court may order the obligor to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy or a bond, or to otherwise secure the child support award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose.

(d)1. All child support orders shall provide the full name and date of birth of each minor child who is the subject of the child support order.

2. If both parties request and the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child, support payments need not be subject to immediate income deduction. Support orders that are not subject to immediate income deduction may be directed through the depository under s. 61.181 or made payable directly to the obligee. Payments made by immediate income deduction shall be made to the State Disbursement Unit. The court shall provide a copy of the order to the depository.

3. For support orders payable directly to the obligee, any party may subsequently file an affidavit with the depository alleging a default in payment of child support and stating that the party wishes to require that payments be made through the depository. The party shall provide copies of the affidavit to the court and to each other party. Fifteen days after receipt of the affidavit, the depository shall notify all parties that future payments shall be paid through the depository, except that payments in Title IV-D cases and income deduction payments shall be made to the State Disbursement Unit. In Title IV-D cases, an affidavit of default or a default in payments is not required to receive depository services. Upon notice by the department that it is providing Title IV-D services in a case with an existing support order, the depository shall transmit case data through, and set up appropriate payment accounts in, regardless of whether there is a delinquency, the Clerk of the Court Child Support Enforcement Collection System as required under s. 61.181(2)(b)1.

(2)(a) The court may approve, grant, or modify a parenting plan, notwithstanding that the child is not physically present in this state at the time of filing any proceeding under this chapter, if it appears to the court that the child was removed from this state for the primary purpose of removing the child from the court’s jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid the court’s approval, creation, or modification of a parenting plan.

(b) A parenting plan approved by the court must, at a minimum, do all of the following:

1. Describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child.

2. Include the time-sharing schedule arrangements that specify the time that the minor child will spend with each parent.

3. Designate who will be responsible for:

a. Any and all forms of health care. If the court orders shared parental responsibility over health care decisions, either parent may consent to mental health treatment for the child unless stated otherwise in the parenting plan.

b. School-related matters, including the address to be used for school-boundary determination and registration.

c. Other activities.

4. Describe in adequate detail the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the child.

5. Unless otherwise agreed to by both parents in writing, designate authorized locations for the exchange of the child. The court may require the parents to exchange the child at a neutral safe exchange location as provided in s. 125.01(8) or a location authorized by a supervised visitation program as defined in s. 753.01 if the court finds that there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one party or the child during the exchange of the child, that such requirement is necessary to ensure the safety of a parent or the child, and that it is in the best interests of the child after consideration of all of the factors listed in subsection (3).

(c) The court shall determine all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, except that modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial and material change of circumstances.

1. It is the public policy of this state that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing. Unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the minor child. Except when a time-sharing schedule is agreed to by the parties and approved by the court, the court must evaluate all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) and make specific written findings of fact when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule.

2. The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment to the child, the court shall consider:

a. Evidence of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28;

b. Whether either parent has or has had reasonable cause to believe that he or she or his or her minor child or children are or have been in imminent danger of becoming victims of an act of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or sexual violence as defined in s. 784.046(1)(c) by the other parent against the parent or against the child or children whom the parents share in common regardless of whether a cause of action has been brought or is currently pending in the court;

c. Whether either parent has or has had reasonable cause to believe that his or her minor child or children are or have been in imminent danger of becoming victims of an act of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01, by the other parent against the child or children whom the parents share in common regardless of whether a cause of action has been brought or is currently pending in the court; and

d. Any other relevant factors.

3. The following evidence creates a rebuttable presumption that shared parental responsibility is detrimental to the child:

a. A parent has been convicted of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher involving domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28 and chapter 775;

b. A parent meets the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d); or

c. A parent has been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for an offense enumerated in s. 943.0435(1)(h)1.a., and at the time of the offense:

(I) The parent was 18 years of age or older.

(II) The victim was under 18 years of age or the parent believed the victim to be under 18 years of age.

If the presumption is not rebutted after the convicted parent is advised by the court that the presumption exists, shared parental responsibility, including time-sharing with the child, and decisions made regarding the child, may not be granted to the convicted parent. However, the convicted parent is not relieved of any obligation to provide financial support. If the court determines that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, it may order sole parental responsibility and make such arrangements for time-sharing as specified in the parenting plan as will best protect the child or abused spouse from further harm. Whether or not there is a conviction of any offense of domestic violence or child abuse or the existence of an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the court shall consider evidence of domestic violence or child abuse as evidence of detriment to the child.

4. In ordering shared parental responsibility, the court may consider the expressed desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare or may divide those responsibilities between the parties based on the best interests of the child. Areas of responsibility may include education, health care, and any other responsibilities that the court finds unique to a particular family.

5. The court shall order sole parental responsibility for a minor child to one parent, with or without time-sharing with the other parent if it is in the best interests of the minor child.

6. There is a rebuttable presumption against granting time-sharing with a minor child if a parent has been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for an offense enumerated in s. 943.0435(1)(h)1.a., and at the time of the offense:

a. The parent was 18 years of age or older.

b. The victim was under 18 years of age or the parent believed the victim to be under 18 years of age.

A parent may rebut the presumption upon a specific finding in writing by the court that the parent poses no significant risk of harm to the child and that time-sharing is in the best interests of the minor child. If the presumption is rebutted, the court must consider all time-sharing factors in subsection (3) when developing a time-sharing schedule.

7. Access to records and information pertaining to a minor child, including, but not limited to, medical, dental, and school records, may not be denied to either parent. Full rights under this subparagraph apply to either parent unless a court order specifically revokes these rights, including any restrictions on these rights as provided in a domestic violence injunction. A parent having rights under this subparagraph has the same rights upon request as to form, substance, and manner of access as are available to the other parent of a child, including, without limitation, the right to in-person communication with medical, dental, and education providers.

(d) The circuit court in the county in which either parent and the child reside or the circuit court in which the original order approving or creating the parenting plan was entered may modify the parenting plan. The court may change the venue in accordance with s. 47.122.

(3) For purposes of establishing or modifying parental responsibility and creating, developing, approving, or modifying a parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent’s relationship with his or her minor child and the relationship between each parent with regard to his or her minor child, the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration. A determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child. If the parents of a child are residing greater than 50 miles apart at the time of the entry of the last order establishing time-sharing and a parent moves within 50 miles of the other parent, then that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances for the purpose of a modification to the time-sharing schedule, so long as there is a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child. Determination of the best interests of the child must be made by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to:

(a) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required.

(b) The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after the litigation, including the extent to which parental responsibilities will be delegated to third parties.

(c) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to determine, consider, and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of the parent.

(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(e) The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling to effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or against relocation of either parent with a child.

(f) The moral fitness of the parents.

(g) The mental and physical health of the parents.

(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

(j) The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be informed of the circumstances of the minor child, including, but not limited to, the child’s friends, teachers, medical care providers, daily activities, and favorite things.

(k) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a consistent routine for the child, such as discipline, and daily schedules for homework, meals, and bedtime.

(l) The demonstrated capacity of each parent to communicate with and keep the other parent informed of issues and activities regarding the minor child, and the willingness of each parent to adopt a unified front on all major issues when dealing with the child.

(m) Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect or evidence that a parent has or has had reasonable cause to believe that he or she or his or her minor child or children are in imminent danger of becoming victims of an act of domestic violence, regardless of whether a prior or pending action relating to those issues has been brought. If the court accepts evidence of prior or pending actions regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, the court must specifically acknowledge in writing that such evidence was considered when evaluating the best interests of the child.

(n) Evidence that either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.

(o) The particular parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent and the division of parental responsibilities before the institution of litigation and during the pending litigation, including the extent to which parenting responsibilities were undertaken by third parties.

(p) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to participate and be involved in the child’s school and extracurricular activities.

(q) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to maintain an environment for the child which is free from substance abuse.

(r) The capacity and disposition of each parent to protect the child from the ongoing litigation as demonstrated by not discussing the litigation with the child, not sharing documents or electronic media related to the litigation with the child, and refraining from disparaging comments about the other parent to the child.

(s) The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s developmental needs.

(t) Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan, including the time-sharing schedule.

(4)(a) When a parent who is ordered to pay child support or alimony fails to pay child support or alimony, the parent who should have received the child support or alimony may not refuse to honor the time-sharing schedule presently in effect between the parents.

(b) When a parent refuses to honor the other parent’s rights under the time-sharing schedule, the parent whose time-sharing rights were violated shall continue to pay any ordered child support or alimony.

1. Shall, after calculating the amount of time-sharing improperly denied, award the parent denied time a sufficient amount of extra time-sharing to compensate for the time-sharing missed, and such time-sharing shall be ordered as expeditiously as possible in a manner consistent with the best interests of the child and scheduled in a manner that is convenient for the parent deprived of time-sharing. In ordering any makeup time-sharing, the court shall schedule such time-sharing in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child or children and that is convenient for the nonoffending parent and at the expense of the noncompliant parent.

2. May order the parent who did not provide time-sharing or did not properly exercise time-sharing under the time-sharing schedule to pay reasonable court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the nonoffending parent to enforce the time-sharing schedule.

3. May order the parent who did not provide time-sharing or did not properly exercise time-sharing under the time-sharing schedule to attend a parenting course approved by the judicial circuit.

4. May order the parent who did not provide time-sharing or did not properly exercise time-sharing under the time-sharing schedule to do community service if the order will not interfere with the welfare of the child.

5. May order the parent who did not provide time-sharing or did not properly exercise time-sharing under the time-sharing schedule to have the financial burden of promoting frequent and continuing contact when that parent and child reside further than 60 miles from the other parent.

6. May, upon the request of the parent who did not violate the time-sharing schedule, modify the parenting plan if modification is in the best interests of the child.

7. May impose any other reasonable sanction as a result of noncompliance.

(d) A person who violates this subsection may be punished by contempt of court or other remedies as the court deems appropriate.

(5) The court may make specific orders regarding the parenting plan and time-sharing schedule as such orders relate to the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case and are equitable and provide for child support in accordance with the guidelines schedule in s. 61.30. An order for equal time-sharing for a minor child does not preclude the court from entering an order for child support of the child.

(6) In any proceeding under this section, the court may not deny shared parental responsibility and time-sharing rights to a parent solely because that parent is or is believed to be infected with human immunodeficiency virus, but the court may, in an order approving the parenting plan, require that parent to observe measures approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States Public Health Service or by the Department of Health for preventing the spread of human immunodeficiency virus to the child.

(7)(a) Each party to any paternity or support proceeding is required to file with the tribunal as defined in s. 88.1011 and State Case Registry upon entry of an order, and to update as appropriate, information on location and identity of the party, including social security number, residential and mailing addresses, telephone number, driver license number, and name, address, and telephone number of employer. Each party to any paternity or child support proceeding in a non-Title IV-D case shall meet the above requirements for updating the tribunal and State Case Registry.

(b) Pursuant to the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each party is required to provide his or her social security number in accordance with this section. Disclosure of social security numbers obtained through this requirement shall be limited to the purpose of administration of the Title IV-D program for child support enforcement.

(c) In any subsequent Title IV-D child support enforcement action between the parties, upon sufficient showing that diligent effort has been made to ascertain the location of such a party, the court of competent jurisdiction shall deem state due process requirements for notice and service of process to be met with respect to the party, upon delivery of written notice to the most recent residential or employer address filed with the tribunal and State Case Registry pursuant to paragraph (a). In any subsequent non-Title IV-D child support enforcement action between the parties, the same requirements for service shall apply.

(8) At the time an order for child support is entered, each party is required to provide his or her social security number and date of birth to the court, as well as the name, date of birth, and social security number of each minor child that is the subject of such child support order. Pursuant to the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each party is required to provide his or her social security number in accordance with this section. All social security numbers required by this section shall be provided by the parties and maintained by the depository as a separate attachment in the file. Disclosure of social security numbers obtained through this requirement shall be limited to the purpose of administration of the Title IV-D program for child support enforcement.

(9)(a) A time-sharing plan may not require that a minor child visit a parent who is a resident of a recovery residence, as defined by s. 397.311, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., unless the court makes a specific finding that such visitation is in the best interest of the child. In determining the best interest of the minor child in such cases, the court shall take into account factors including, but not limited to, whether the parent resides in a specialized residence for pregnant women or parents whose children reside with them, the number of adults living in the recovery residence, and the parent’s level of recovery.

(b) A time-sharing plan that does not mention a recovery residence may not be interpreted to require that a minor child visit a parent who is a resident of a recovery residence, as defined by s. 397.311, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

(c) A court may not order visitation at a recovery residence if any resident of the recovery residence is currently required to register as a sexual predator under s. 775.21 or as a sexual offender under s. 943.0435.

History.—s. 7, Oct. 31, 1828; RS 1489; GS 1938; RGS 3201; CGL 4993; s. 16, ch. 67-254; s. 15, ch. 71-241; s. 1, ch. 75-67; s. 1, ch. 75-99; s. 26, ch. 77-433; s. 1, ch. 78-5; s. 18, ch. 79-164; ss. 1, 4, ch. 82-96; s. 3, ch. 84-110; s. 1, ch. 84-152; s. 118, ch. 86-220; s. 1, ch. 87-95; s. 4, ch. 88-176; s. 1, ch. 89-183; s. 1, ch. 89-350; s. 4, ch. 91-246; s. 4, ch. 93-188; s. 1, ch. 93-208; s. 1, ch. 93-236; s. 9, ch. 94-134; s. 9, ch. 94-135; s. 14, ch. 95-222; s. 5, ch. 96-183; s. 2, ch. 96-305; s. 24, ch. 97-95; s. 3, ch. 97-155; s. 3, ch. 97-170; s. 4, ch. 97-226; s. 1, ch. 97-242; s. 8, ch. 98-397; s. 122, ch. 98-403; s. 3, ch. 99-8; s. 2, ch. 99-375; s. 7, ch. 2000-151; s. 1, ch. 2001-2; s. 4, ch. 2001-158; s. 3, ch. 2002-65; s. 2, ch. 2002-173; s. 2, ch. 2003-5; s. 2, ch. 2004-334; s. 1, ch. 2005-39; s. 1, ch. 2005-82; s. 7, ch. 2005-239; s. 1, ch. 2006-245; s. 8, ch. 2008-61; s. 2, ch. 2009-90; s. 3, ch. 2009-180; s. 1, ch. 2010-187; s. 3, ch. 2010-199; s. 76, ch. 2011-92; s. 81, ch. 2016-241; s. 1, ch. 2017-80; s. 1, ch. 2021-103; s. 1, ch. 2021-139; s. 3, ch. 2021-156; s. 2, ch. 2023-112; s. 7, ch. 2023-152; s. 2, ch. 2023-213; s. 1, ch. 2023-301; s. 2, ch. 2023-315; s. 52, ch. 2024-70; s. 7, ch. 2024-71; s. 2, ch. 2024-226; ss. 21, 54, ch. 2025-156.

Note.—Former s. 65.14.

F.S. 61.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.13 on CourtListener

Amendments to 61.13

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 61.13

Total Results: 956

Dykes v. Hosemann

776 F.2d 942, 54 U.S.L.W. 2297

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 18, 1985 | Docket: 66211801

Cited 106 times | Published

permanent custody of the child. See Fla.Stat. § 61.13 (1977). Florida law provides that the deliberate

Beagle v. Beagle

678 So. 2d 1271, 1996 WL 473320

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 22, 1996 | Docket: 1470798

Cited 89 times | Published

statute. First, in 1978, the legislature modified section 61.13(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes. The relevant

Dinkel v. Dinkel

322 So. 2d 22

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 14, 1975 | Docket: 1413803

Cited 84 times | Published

awarding custody to a third party. While Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A., provides for equal consideration of

Wade v. Hirschman

903 So. 2d 928, 2005 WL 1243537

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2005 | Docket: 1257811

Cited 60 times | Published

agreements on the considerations set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2003), as if it were making

Mize v. Mize

621 So. 2d 417, 1993 WL 241042

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 1993 | Docket: 479610

Cited 47 times | Published

even though the parents are no longer married. Section 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989). Thus, although one

Steinhauer v. Steinhauer

252 So. 2d 825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 1971 | Docket: 1690110

Cited 43 times | Published

either party; under Section 15, amending F.S. Section 61.13, F.S.A., both the father and the mother of the

Alex W. Newton v. Capital Assurance Company, Inc.

245 F.3d 1306, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5206

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 29, 2001 | Docket: 661095

Cited 41 times | Published

or the United States, see 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f), and they may use theft own, individual “customary

Bosem v. Bosem

279 So. 2d 863

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1973 | Docket: 425758

Cited 41 times | Published

divorce action was commenced is found in Fla. Stat. § 61.13, F.S.A. (1969), which provides: "In any action

Kern v. Kern

360 So. 2d 482, 99 A.L.R. 3d 316

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 1978 | Docket: 1738470

Cited 37 times | Published

dissolution proceedings is *484 granted by Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1977), which provides

Gibbs v. Gibbs

686 So. 2d 639, 1996 WL 681067

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 1996 | Docket: 1259896

Cited 32 times | Published

review of all of the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, the trial court finds

Bush v. Schiavo

885 So. 2d 321, 2004 WL 2109983

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2004 | Docket: 263908

Cited 31 times | Published

termination of parental rights and child custody. See § 61.13(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("The court shall determine

Gibson v. Bennett

561 So. 2d 565, 1990 WL 62031

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1990 | Docket: 1740182

Cited 30 times | Published

statutory duty upon parents to support their children. § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987). This policy stems from

Carneiro Da Cunha v. Standard Fire Insurance

129 F.3d 581, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33875, 1997 WL 713977

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 1, 1997 | Docket: 1712777

Cited 29 times | Published

See 42 U.S.C. § 4051 (1994); 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(l)(1996). The current provisions of the Code of

In Re Gregory

313 So. 2d 735

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1975 | Docket: 1751245

Cited 29 times | Published

the child. He so decided and he was correct. See § 61.13, Florida Statutes; Wilson v. Condra, Fla.App. 1971

Hinton v. Smith

725 So. 2d 1154, 1998 WL 796713

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1998 | Docket: 1688963

Cited 28 times | Published

Central Government Depository, as required by § 61.13(d)" and "fails to provide for entry of a separate

Overbey v. Overbey

698 So. 2d 811, 1997 WL 296971

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1997 | Docket: 434865

Cited 28 times | Published

provided for in the ... order. (Emphasis added.) Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1995), which governs the

O'Brien v. O'Brien

424 So. 2d 970

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1983 | Docket: 1708173

Cited 28 times | Published

DCA 1973); § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1979), although prior to the 1971 amendment to section 61.13, the obligation

Cooper v. Gress

854 So. 2d 262, 2003 WL 22107913

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2003 | Docket: 1747345

Cited 27 times | Published

children. Tracking the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1999), which are typically

Sumlar v. Sumlar

827 So. 2d 1079, 2002 WL 31295118

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2002 | Docket: 1360465

Cited 27 times | Published

entitlement to child support, and the amount thereof. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (2000). Competent substantial evidence

Stone v. Wall

734 So. 2d 1038, 1999 WL 424384

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1999 | Docket: 1730947

Cited 27 times | Published

custody. See §§ 61.1302.1348, Fla. Stat. (1997); cf. § 61.13(4)(c) (providing certain remedies for noncustodial

In Interest of DJS

563 So. 2d 655, 1990 WL 50408

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1990 | Docket: 1682893

Cited 27 times | Published

relevant in custody battle between parents; Section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes, provides in part as

Nelson v. Nelson

433 So. 2d 1015

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1983 | Docket: 1424884

Cited 27 times | Published

my view, be read in pari materia *1021 with section 61.13(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). The trial

Peak v. Peak

411 So. 2d 325

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1982 | Docket: 187594

Cited 27 times | Published

circumstances of each party and the nature of the case. § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). The most dominant and directly

Richardson v. Richardson

766 So. 2d 1036, 2000 WL 1158317

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2000 | Docket: 1697891

Cited 26 times | Published

affirm the district court decision and hold that section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1999), is facially unconstitutional

Cronebaugh v. Van Dyke

415 So. 2d 738

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1982 | Docket: 2506559

Cited 26 times | Published

is also illustrated by the last sentence in section 61.13(1), Florida Statutes (1979), which provides

Gorman v. Gorman

400 So. 2d 75

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1981 | Docket: 1263563

Cited 26 times | Published

and welfare of the child as contemplated by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1979), and that when the

Schram v. Schram

932 So. 2d 245, 2005 WL 2138747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 2005 | Docket: 1684869

Cited 24 times | Published

considering all of the statutory factors set forth in Section 61.13(3)(a)-(m), that is it [sic] in the paramount

Hunter v. Hunter

540 So. 2d 235, 1989 WL 6201

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 1989 | Docket: 340621

Cited 24 times | Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the child[ren]." § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1986); see Hicks v. Hicks

Ray v. Pentlicki

375 So. 2d 875

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 1979 | Docket: 1705387

Cited 24 times | Published

circuit court has continuing jurisdiction under § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1977) to modify an award of child

Bader v. Bader

639 So. 2d 122, 1994 WL 280231

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 1994 | Docket: 1712704

Cited 22 times | Published

of exceptional importance. Our focus is on section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1991), which requires

Collinsworth v. O'CONNELL

508 So. 2d 744, 56 U.S.L.W. 2042

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1987 | Docket: 1648848

Cited 22 times | Published

statute, section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), to unwed parents. Section 61.13(2)(b)1 provides

Mitchell v. Mitchell

841 So. 2d 564, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2003 | Docket: 1234151

Cited 21 times | Published

obligation determined pursuant to section 61.30(6). § 61.13(1)(b); .30(8). See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So.2d

Adair v. Adair

720 So. 2d 316, 1998 WL 796504

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 1998 | Docket: 1719121

Cited 21 times | Published

children in accordance with their best interests. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); Race v. Sullivan, 612

Matilla v. Matilla

474 So. 2d 306, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1739

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1985 | Docket: 1486198

Cited 21 times | Published

82-96, Laws of Florida (1982), now codified at section 61.13(b)2.a, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides:

Roper v. Roper

336 So. 2d 654

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 1976 | Docket: 245281

Cited 21 times | Published

determining the best interests of the child. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(g) (1975). Green v. Green, 254 So.2d 860 (1st

Sistrunk v. Sistrunk

235 So. 2d 53

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1970 | Docket: 1382795

Cited 21 times | Published

and maintenance of children of the marriage (Section 61.13, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.), and upon a change of circumstances

Borchard v. Borchard

730 So. 2d 748, 1999 WL 128625

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 1999 | Docket: 1755154

Cited 20 times | Published

children and permitted her to return to Arizona. Section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), took effect

Aguirre v. Aguirre

985 So. 2d 1203, 2008 WL 2663688

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2008 | Docket: 1673636

Cited 19 times | Published

and if so, to consider the application of Section 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Florida Statutes (1997), which provides

Woolf v. Woolf

901 So. 2d 905, 2005 WL 906191

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2005 | Docket: 1666215

Cited 19 times | Published

the parties...". Id. Similarly, Florida Statute § 61.13(1)(a)(2004) confers jurisdiction on the trial court

Hill v. Hooten

776 So. 2d 1004, 2001 WL 43014

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2001 | Docket: 421747

Cited 19 times | Published

non-covered medical expenses in the final judgment. Section 61.13(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes (1999), provides

Anderson v. Anderson

309 So. 2d 1

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 1975 | Docket: 1770538

Cited 19 times | Published

suited to their needs.'" (197 So. 531) F.S.A. § 61.13(2) providing for equal consideration of the father

Flint v. Fortson

744 So. 2d 1217, 1999 WL 1016246

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 1999 | Docket: 1380558

Cited 18 times | Published

which discussed the six. factors set forth in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997). If Mize v. Mize

Schweinberg v. Click

627 So. 2d 548, 1993 WL 473182

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 1993 | Docket: 1752968

Cited 18 times | Published

mother and this is encouraged by Florida law. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1991). The children's wishes alone

Murphy v. Murphy

621 So. 2d 455, 1993 WL 74287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1993 | Docket: 1265573

Cited 18 times | Published

explicitly acknowledge that there is nothing in section 61.13(3) to require a trial judge to set out written

Martinez v. Martinez

573 So. 2d 37, 1990 WL 212133

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 1990 | Docket: 479132

Cited 18 times | Published

upon a substantial change in circumstances. Section 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that

Standard Blasting & Coating v. Hayman

476 So. 2d 1385, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2420

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 1985 | Docket: 1681434

Cited 18 times | Published

[3] 2 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 61.13(d) (1983).

Layeni v. Layeni

843 So. 2d 295, 2003 WL 553768

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2003 | Docket: 1244057

Cited 17 times | Published

assets which may be suitable for that purpose." § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1998). As the statute requires

Gielchinsky v. Gielchinsky

662 So. 2d 732, 1995 WL 637515

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1995 | Docket: 1683563

Cited 17 times | Published

interfering with the father's visitation rights, and section 61.13(4)(c)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), does authorize

Matter of Dubreuil

629 So. 2d 819, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 575, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1761, 1993 WL 444293

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 1993 | Docket: 1677339

Cited 17 times | Published

parental responsibility, to which this state adheres. § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991); see, e.g., Mize v. Mize

Schutz v. Schutz

581 So. 2d 1290, 1991 WL 79246

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 16, 1991 | Docket: 1283979

Cited 17 times | Published

frequent and continuing contact with him. See § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1985) (the court shall determine

McIntyre v. McIntyre

452 So. 2d 14

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 1984 | Docket: 474371

Cited 17 times | Published

misconstruing the effect of the newly amended Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1982), by determining

Newsom v. Newsom

759 So. 2d 718, 2000 WL 492029

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2000 | Docket: 1736403

Cited 16 times | Published

stated that it considered all of the elements of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and found that there

Brotman v. Brotman

528 So. 2d 550, 1988 WL 75998

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1988 | Docket: 1717655

Cited 16 times | Published

circumstances of each party and the nature of the case. § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). The most dominant and directly

Gerscovich v. Gerscovich

406 So. 2d 1150

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 1981 | Docket: 1510094

Cited 16 times | Published

upon to determine what effect the provision of Section 61.13(2)(b) Florida Statutes (1979) that: "Upon considering

Freilich v. Freilich

897 So. 2d 537, 2005 WL 497271

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2005 | Docket: 1735323

Cited 15 times | Published

there is a substantial change of circumstances. § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In Ledbetter v. Bell, 698 So

In Re Family Law Rules of Procedure

663 So. 2d 1049, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 581, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1953, 1995 WL 689537

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1995 | Docket: 1313670

Cited 15 times | Published

employer. *1184 For further information, see § 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A person who is NOT an

Held v. Held

617 So. 2d 358, 1993 WL 113351

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1993 | Docket: 457954

Cited 15 times | Published

1274 (Fla. 1985); § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1991);[3] § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991).[4] As a result, we find

Rey v. Rey

598 So. 2d 141, 1992 WL 75662

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 1992 | Docket: 1472800

Cited 15 times | Published

some security to the wife and the minor son. Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), requires that

DeCamp v. Hein

541 So. 2d 708, 1989 WL 30208

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 1989 | Docket: 470563

Cited 15 times | Published

aged one and three, we note the provision in section 61.13(2)(b)(1) that "the father of the child shall

Brown v. Bray

300 So. 2d 668

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 1974 | Docket: 1729337

Cited 15 times | Published

legitimate child enjoys. Appellant notes F.S. Section 61.13(2), F.S.A. provides for equal consideration

Ogilvie v. Ogilvie

954 So. 2d 698, 2007 WL 1146458

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2007 | Docket: 636583

Cited 14 times | Published

decree." Id. at 934. Without reference to section 61.13(2)(b)(2.), Florida Statutes, the Florida Supreme

Ogilvie v. Ogilvie

954 So. 2d 698, 2007 WL 1146458

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2007 | Docket: 636583

Cited 14 times | Published

decree." Id. at 934. Without reference to section 61.13(2)(b)(2.), Florida Statutes, the Florida Supreme

Strommen v. Strommen

927 So. 2d 176, 2006 WL 1113527

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2006 | Docket: 1765502

Cited 14 times | Published

found in sections 61.13(1)(a) and 61.13(2)(c). Section 61.13(1)(a) provides in pertinent part: "The court

Sullivan v. Sapp

866 So. 2d 28, 2004 WL 62845

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 2004 | Docket: 1273775

Cited 14 times | Published

District Court of Appeal expressly declared section 61.13(2)(b)2.c. of the Florida Statutes (2001) unconstitutional

Feger v. Feger

850 So. 2d 611, 2003 WL 21697203

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2003 | Docket: 1783553

Cited 14 times | Published

jointly," as defined in section 61.046(11). Under section 61.13(2)(b)(2), a court is required to order shared

Department of Revenue v. Jackson

846 So. 2d 486, 2003 WL 1922661

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2003 | Docket: 1709864

Cited 14 times | Published

under review and remand with instructions. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2001), provides a court that

Perez v. Perez

767 So. 2d 513, 2000 WL 873199

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2000 | Docket: 1661685

Cited 14 times | Published

would be detrimental to the children,'") (quoting § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (supp.1986); and Hicks v. Hicks

Moody v. Moody

721 So. 2d 731, 1998 WL 283293

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1998 | Docket: 1323550

Cited 14 times | Published

substitute judge followed the statutory criteria in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, in making his findings

Maradie v. Maradie

680 So. 2d 538, 1996 WL 392958

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1996 | Docket: 1201890

Cited 14 times | Published

to the "moral fitness" of each party under section 61.13(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1995),[1] including

Andrews v. Andrews

624 So. 2d 391, 1993 WL 372196

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1993 | Docket: 475513

Cited 14 times | Published

consideration of the best interests of the child. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1991). This court has previously discouraged

Buttermore v. Meyer

559 So. 2d 357, 1990 WL 39900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1990 | Docket: 1751665

Cited 14 times | Published

enactment of Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, relating to shared parental responsibility. Section 61.13 has no

Holland v. Holland

458 So. 2d 81

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1984 | Docket: 1733105

Cited 14 times | Published

responsibility provisions of the Legislative act. Section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982) states:

Ramey v. Thomas

382 So. 2d 78

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 1980 | Docket: 1254943

Cited 14 times | Published

§ 732.103 Fla. Stat. (1979) (inheritance) and § 61.13(2)(b) Fla. Stat. (1979) (visitation rights of grandparents

Decker v. Lyle

848 So. 2d 501, 2003 WL 21536980

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2003 | Docket: 1712330

Cited 13 times | Published

agree. The shared parental responsibility law, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2002), applies to custody

Miller v. Miller

842 So. 2d 168, 2003 WL 716664

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2003 | Docket: 1439644

Cited 13 times | Published

reasons satisfy the statutory requirements of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and the record contains

Clark v. Clark

825 So. 2d 1016, 2002 WL 2030706

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 2002 | Docket: 1691095

Cited 13 times | Published

findings based on evidence, in accordance with section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2000). A trial court need

Sinclair v. Sinclair

804 So. 2d 589, 2002 WL 63408

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2002 | Docket: 1699487

Cited 13 times | Published

Grandmother moved to intervene pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). She alleged

Attorney Ad Litem for DK v. Parents of DK

780 So. 2d 301, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3473, 2001 WL 273834

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 21, 2001 | Docket: 1708825

Cited 13 times | Published

III. Best Interests of the Child Pursuant to section 61.13(2)(a), the court shall determine all matters

Waugh v. Waugh

679 So. 2d 1, 1996 WL 170181

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1996 | Docket: 1215113

Cited 13 times | Published

visitation rights upon his payment of child support. Section 61.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provides: "When

Agudo v. Agudo

411 So. 2d 249

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1982 | Docket: 1327422

Cited 13 times | Published

equal consideration in matters of custody, see § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979); Anderson v. Anderson

Nicolay v. Nicolay

387 So. 2d 500

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 1980 | Docket: 1355833

Cited 13 times | Published

college education was seldom if ever raised. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1979), then provided, as

Critchlow v. Critchlow

347 So. 2d 453

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1977 | Docket: 1290918

Cited 13 times | Published

interest of the minor child or children. See Section 61.13(3)(g), Florida Statutes (1975). In light of

Larocka v. Larocka

43 So. 3d 911, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13421, 2010 WL 3515560

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2010 | Docket: 2396001

Cited 12 times | Published

responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing." § 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2007). It is the responsibility

Artuso v. Dick

843 So. 2d 942, 2003 WL 1824610

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 2003 | Docket: 1244048

Cited 12 times | Published

court determined that the criteria listed in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1999), favored the father

Alex W. Newton v. Capital Assurance Company, Inc.

209 F.3d 1302, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7189, 2000 WL 430044

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 20, 2000 | Docket: 588671

Cited 12 times | Published

or the United States, see 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f), and they may use their own, individual “customary

Gordon v. Smith

615 So. 2d 843, 1993 WL 74295

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1993 | Docket: 410705

Cited 12 times | Published

custody proceedings. We first note that in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1991), subsection (3) directly

Wills v. Wills

399 So. 2d 1130

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 1981 | Docket: 1168263

Cited 12 times | Published

grandparents if it is in the child's best interest. § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). It has not granted similar

Birge v. Simpson

280 So. 2d 482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 1973 | Docket: 1687464

Cited 12 times | Published

CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur. NOTES [1] F.S. § 61.13, F.S.A. (1969); Pollack v. Pollack, 159 Fla. 224

Sherman v. Sherman

279 So. 2d 887

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1973 | Docket: 425428

Cited 12 times | Published

App. 1968, 212 So.2d 352. See also Fla. Stat. § 61.13, F.S.A., which provides in part: * * * * * * "The

Wilcoxon v. Moller

132 So. 3d 281, 2014 WL 51684, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 166

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2014 | Docket: 60238399

Cited 11 times | Published

modification is in the best interest of the child.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2012). The parties did not present

Hindle v. FUITH

33 So. 3d 782, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5347, 2010 WL 1626410

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2010 | Docket: 1649168

Cited 11 times | Published

in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and determine the best interests of the child. See § 61.13, Fla

Guerin v. DiRoma

819 So. 2d 968, 2002 WL 1369603

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 2002 | Docket: 1192729

Cited 11 times | Published

secure child support and an alimony obligation. Section 61.13(1)(c), provides that a court may order an obligor

Sullivan v. Sullivan

668 So. 2d 329, 1996 WL 72224

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1996 | Docket: 2583725

Cited 11 times | Published

mother based solely on the age of the child. See § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1993); Cherradi v. Lavoie,

Russenberger v. Russenberger

639 So. 2d 963

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1994 | Docket: 1712709

Cited 11 times | Published

present the type of situation contemplated by section 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Florida Statutes (1991).[1] *965

Moore v. Trevino

612 So. 2d 604, 1992 WL 385390

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1992 | Docket: 1262450

Cited 11 times | Published

not given due consideration as required by section 61.13(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: The court

Hicks v. Hicks

511 So. 2d 628, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1744

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 1987 | Docket: 361285

Cited 11 times | Published

parental responsibility to the wife as required by section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1985). In Nichols

Al-Fassi v. Al-Fassi

433 So. 2d 664

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1983 | Docket: 1424391

Cited 11 times | Published

Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 122 A.2d 593 (1956). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1981) states that the

Wanstall v. Wanstall

427 So. 2d 353

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1983 | Docket: 1648100

Cited 11 times | Published

agreement between the parties approved by the court. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1981).[1] Section 61.14, Florida Statutes

Lacy v. Lacy

413 So. 2d 472

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1982 | Docket: 1345145

Cited 11 times | Published

to grant an increase. We agree with William. Section 61.13(1) reads in pertinent part as follows: 61.13

Fagan v. Fagan

381 So. 2d 278

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1980 | Docket: 1716665

Cited 11 times | Published

the term, "court of competent jurisdiction." Section 61.13 empowers a court in a proceeding for dissolution

Todd v. Guillaume-Todd

972 So. 2d 1003, 2008 WL 36615

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2008 | Docket: 1650340

Cited 10 times | Published

and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing. § 61.13(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2006). Here, there are three

Fredman v. Fredman

960 So. 2d 52, 2007 WL 1756970

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2007 | Docket: 1407324

Cited 10 times | Published

parties' two children to Texas. She contends that section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), the parental

Segarra v. Segarra

947 So. 2d 543, 2006 WL 3780844

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2006 | Docket: 1376529

Cited 10 times | Published

trial court analyzed the factors listed in section 61.13(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and concluded that

Cerase v. Dewhurst

935 So. 2d 575, 2006 WL 2135928

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2006 | Docket: 1670910

Cited 10 times | Published

of fact and, as to the criteria set forth in section 61.13(2)(d)1-6 of the Florida Statutes, concluded

Wakeman v. Dixon

921 So. 2d 669, 2006 WL 162748

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 2006 | Docket: 1660128

Cited 10 times | Published

or visitation. By its explicit provisions, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2004), concerns only the

Cleary v. Cleary

872 So. 2d 299, 2004 WL 784645

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 1357330

Cited 10 times | Published

interests of the children as required under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1997). Although there is

Botterbusch v. Botterbusch

851 So. 2d 903, 2003 WL 21919846

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2003 | Docket: 1313058

Cited 10 times | Published

concerning the statutory factors listed in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2002). Id.; see also

Jacoby v. Jacoby

763 So. 2d 410, 2000 WL 678997

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2000 | Docket: 1681894

Cited 10 times | Published

findings under the custody factors set out in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1997), were not supported

Spence v. Stewart

705 So. 2d 996, 1998 WL 39397

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1998 | Docket: 1554958

Cited 10 times | Published

Bree, 590 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Under section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), a court

In Re Marriage of Matzen

600 So. 2d 487, 1992 WL 110908

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1992 | Docket: 1527829

Cited 10 times | Published

the maternal grandparents and the mother. See section 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Florida Statutes (1991). Appellant

Haas v. Haas

552 So. 2d 221, 1989 WL 116621

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 1989 | Docket: 1663668

Cited 10 times | Published

that the insurance is "reasonably available." § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). On this record, it is

Haas v. Haas

552 So. 2d 221, 1989 WL 116621

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 1989 | Docket: 1663668

Cited 10 times | Published

that the insurance is "reasonably available." § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). On this record, it is

Longo v. Longo

533 So. 2d 791, 1988 WL 96107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1988 | Docket: 1656409

Cited 10 times | Published

that purpose. A similar amendment was made to section 61.13(1), pertaining to child support. Some courts

Markham v. Markham

485 So. 2d 1299, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 473

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 1986 | Docket: 1680867

Cited 10 times | Published

best interests of the child. (Emphasis added). § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla. Stat. (1983). This section contemplates

Elebash v. Elebash

450 So. 2d 1268

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1984 | Docket: 1433501

Cited 10 times | Published

involves "shared parental responsibility" under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1983). As it had the authority

Nichols v. Nichols

432 So. 2d 648

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 1983 | Docket: 2575222

Cited 10 times | Published

care and upbringing" of the parties' children. Section 61.13(2)(b) 2 Fla. Stat. provides that: The court

Vandervoort v. Vandervoort

277 So. 2d 43

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 1973 | Docket: 1730456

Cited 10 times | Published

and maintenance of children of the marriage (Section 61.13, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.), and upon a change of circumstances

Winters v. Brown

51 So. 3d 656, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 548, 2011 WL 222321

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2011 | Docket: 2407968

Cited 9 times | Published

affecting the welfare and interests of the child. § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2008). "While a trial court need

Bishop v. Bishop

47 So. 3d 326, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14470, 2010 WL 3766869

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 2010 | Docket: 2401482

Cited 9 times | Published

to be paid directly to the Wife contrary to section 61.13(1)(d)(3), Florida Statutes, which requires payments

Sanchez v. Hernandez

45 So. 3d 57, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13373, 2010 WL 3488785

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2010 | Docket: 2401903

Cited 9 times | Published

district with an A-rated school. Applying the section 61.13 criteria, the guardian ad litem opined that

Smith v. Smith

971 So. 2d 191, 2007 WL 4561584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2007 | Docket: 1445837

Cited 9 times | Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the child." § 61.13(2)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2005). Former Husband has

Cecemski v. Cecemski

954 So. 2d 1227, 2007 WL 1159705

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2007 | Docket: 1651730

Cited 9 times | Published

made prior to a final judgment of dissolution, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005),[4] requires

Burnham v. Burnham

884 So. 2d 390, 2004 WL 2069738

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2004 | Docket: 1682991

Cited 9 times | Published

further proceedings. (c) Insurance Requirement Section 61.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), authorizes the

Chapman v. Prevatt

845 So. 2d 976, 2003 WL 21180389

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2003 | Docket: 1728851

Cited 9 times | Published

mother's relocation request in accordance with section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2001). This section

Knipe v. Knipe

840 So. 2d 335, 2003 WL 354904

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2003 | Docket: 1464110

Cited 9 times | Published

responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing." § 61.13(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2001). "`Shared parental responsibility'

Dorta-Duque v. Dorta-Duque

791 So. 2d 1148, 2001 WL 686493

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2001 | Docket: 1228904

Cited 9 times | Published

concerning the six statutory factors listed in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997). See Gray v.

Fullerton v. Fullerton

709 So. 2d 162, 1998 WL 135087

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 1998 | Docket: 1681986

Cited 9 times | Published

the court correctly applied the criteria of section 61.13, Florida Statutes, in determining who should

Compton v. Compton

701 So. 2d 110, 1997 WL 627538

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 1997 | Docket: 1424938

Cited 9 times | Published

findings supporting the change of custody. Section 61.13(4)(c)[1] permits a change of custody if the

Ford v. Ford

700 So. 2d 191, 1997 WL 536010

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1997 | Docket: 1373628

Cited 9 times | Published

made after evaluation of the factors listed in section 61.13, is subject to an abuse of discretion standard

Duchesneau v. Duchesneau

692 So. 2d 205, 1997 WL 111331

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1997 | Docket: 435906

Cited 9 times | Published

to the statutory considerations set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. However, there is no statutory

Williams v. Williams

676 So. 2d 493, 1996 WL 354662

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1996 | Docket: 1317640

Cited 9 times | Published

Elijah Terrell Williams, without just cause. See Section 61.13(4)(c)(2), Florida Statutes. He caused her to

Pyne v. Black

650 So. 2d 1073, 1995 WL 63070

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 1995 | Docket: 1703079

Cited 9 times | Published

change until 1986 when the legislature enacted § 61.13(4)(b). Effective October 1, 1986 a noncustodial

In Re Guardianship of Wilkes

501 So. 2d 704, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 419

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 1987 | Docket: 538067

Cited 9 times | Published

applied in custody disputes between parents. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). A different standard

Frey v. Wagner

433 So. 2d 60

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 1983 | Docket: 1424770

Cited 9 times | Published

apparent view that the recent amendment to Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1982) (commonly known as

Barranco, Darlson, Daniel & Bluestein v. Winner

386 So. 2d 1277, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1980 | Docket: 1518311

Cited 9 times | Published

"pursuant to the authority vested in it by Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1978), general equitable

Claughton v. Claughton

344 So. 2d 944

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 1977 | Docket: 2564893

Cited 9 times | Published

the moral fitness of the parents, pursuant to Section 61.13(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1975), must necessarily

Sikes v. Sikes

286 So. 2d 210

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 1973 | Docket: 1714623

Cited 9 times | Published

WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] F.S., § 61.13(1), F.S.A. [2] Haley v. Edwards, (Fla.App. 1970)

Whittingham v. Whittingham

67 So. 3d 239, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14188, 2010 WL 3718117

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 2010 | Docket: 2364248

Cited 8 times | Published

coverage for the minor child as required by section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007). The order also

Arthur v. Arthur

54 So. 3d 454, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 38, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 41, 2010 WL 114532

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2010 | Docket: 60298289

Cited 8 times | Published

interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2006), requires trial courts

Castillo v. Castillo

950 So. 2d 527, 2007 WL 750406

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2007 | Docket: 2575136

Cited 8 times | Published

392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). However, section 61.13(3) does not require the

Alois v. Alois

937 So. 2d 171, 2006 WL 2265417

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 2006 | Docket: 1513099

Cited 8 times | Published

believe no such finding could have been made. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, states that "the court may

Shafer v. Shafer

898 So. 2d 1053, 2005 WL 602521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2005 | Docket: 1448293

Cited 8 times | Published

court considered all of the statutory factors. See § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2004). The court also stressed

Lonon v. Ferrell

739 So. 2d 650, 1999 WL 550673

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 1999 | Docket: 2540254

Cited 8 times | Published

relationship seeks custody of the child under section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. That issue is not before

Roberts v. FLORIDA DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

687 So. 2d 51, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 283, 1997 WL 30875

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 1997 | Docket: 1718753

Cited 8 times | Published

review denied, 675 So.2d 928 (Fla.1996). Compare § 61.13(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (1995) ("[t]he court shall

Skirko v. Skirko

677 So. 2d 885, 1996 WL 346915

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1996 | Docket: 1266512

Cited 8 times | Published

used for making an initial custody determination. § 61.13(3), Fla.Stat. (1995). Based on these findings,

Rumph v. Interest of VD

667 So. 2d 998, 1996 WL 61138

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1996 | Docket: 1511576

Cited 8 times | Published

of everyone, and particularly small children, § 61.13(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993), and that it is unwise

Zolonz v. Zolonz

659 So. 2d 451, 1995 WL 480677

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 1995 | Docket: 1748063

Cited 8 times | Published

obligation to support his or her minor children. See § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993) (court may order any parent

Sotnick v. Sotnick

650 So. 2d 157, 1995 WL 46411

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1995 | Docket: 1346755

Cited 8 times | Published

applied is the best interests of the child. See § 61.13(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). The husband urges

Butler v. Brewster

629 So. 2d 1092, 1994 WL 6721

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 1994 | Docket: 1677407

Cited 8 times | Published

such insurance made available by her employer. Section 61.13(1)(b) provides in pertinent part: 61.13. Custody

Mast v. Reed

578 So. 2d 304, 1991 WL 32993

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1991 | Docket: 1525232

Cited 8 times | Published

Florida as expressed by the legislature in section 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1989): (b)1. The court

In Interest of SMH

531 So. 2d 228, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2183, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4127, 1988 WL 95725

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 1988 | Docket: 543676

Cited 8 times | Published

that the shared parental responsibility law (Section 61.13, Florida Statutes) now controls custody disputes

Hayman v. Hayman

522 So. 2d 531, 1988 WL 24179

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1988 | Docket: 1191831

Cited 8 times | Published

in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1987), what is in the

Barnes v. Frazier

509 So. 2d 401, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1650

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 1987 | Docket: 1715350

Cited 8 times | Published

whether the Shared Parental Responsibility Law, section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1985), is applicable

Hart v. Hart

458 So. 2d 815

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 1984 | Docket: 1452442

Cited 8 times | Published

with the shared parental responsibility law, Section 61.13(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes (1983). WALDEN, J

Vazquez v. Vazquez

443 So. 2d 313

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1983 | Docket: 1458777

Cited 8 times | Published

providing for "shared parental responsibility." Section 61.13(2)(b)2 a, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). The

Vazquez v. Vazquez

443 So. 2d 313

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1983 | Docket: 1458777

Cited 8 times | Published

providing for "shared parental responsibility." Section 61.13(2)(b)2 a, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). The

Scheiner v. Scheiner

336 So. 2d 406

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 1976 | Docket: 1721083

Cited 8 times | Published

rights to custody and visitation. See Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(b). Also, in each of these cases except In Re

Munroe v. OLIBRICE

83 So. 3d 985, 2012 WL 1020061, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2012 | Docket: 2526055

Cited 7 times | Published

engage in a "best interest" analysis pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2010); (2) order shared parental

Ragle v. Ragle

82 So. 3d 109, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12738, 2011 WL 3558156

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2011 | Docket: 2532892

Cited 7 times | Published

proper ground for the change.”). Pursuant to section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, “A determination of parental

Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Poynter v. Bunnell

51 So. 3d 543, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19938, 2010 WL 5540945

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2010 | Docket: 2408183

Cited 7 times | Published

shared responsibility of the child, pursuant to section 61.13(2), Florida Statutes (2009). Noting that the

Winney v. Winney

979 So. 2d 396, 2008 WL 1774163

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2008 | Docket: 2539848

Cited 7 times | Published

necessary to protect the child support award. See § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007). A trial court may not

Thyrre v. Thyrre

963 So. 2d 859, 2007 WL 2285318

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2007 | Docket: 1328301

Cited 7 times | Published

financial circumstances justifying modification. See § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that a court

Muller v. Muller

964 So. 2d 732, 2007 WL 2188337

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2007 | Docket: 1240834

Cited 7 times | Published

concerning the statutory factors listed in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2002). We do not engage

Fredman v. Fredman

917 So. 2d 1038, 2006 WL 47519

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 2006 | Docket: 447996

Cited 7 times | Published

factual findings related to the factors listed in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), and concluded

Burckle v. Burckle

915 So. 2d 747, 2005 WL 3334541

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2005 | Docket: 1690689

Cited 7 times | Published

welfare and interests of the child as required by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2003), and it did not

Schneider v. Schneider

864 So. 2d 1193, 2004 WL 57289

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2004 | Docket: 1727539

Cited 7 times | Published

trial court failed to follow the intent of section 61.13 and failed to delineate [the] specific aspects

Williams v. Williams

845 So. 2d 246, 2003 WL 2003782

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2003 | Docket: 1432524

Cited 7 times | Published

consideration of the child's best interests. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002) (requiring that court

Wilson v. Wilson

827 So. 2d 401, 2002 WL 31268405

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2002 | Docket: 1362209

Cited 7 times | Published

The trial court correctly noted that under section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2001), there are six

Hoffman v. Hoffman

793 So. 2d 128, 2001 WL 945848

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 22, 2001 | Docket: 1678050

Cited 7 times | Published

support obligation). The Husband also references section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides

Mian v. Mian

775 So. 2d 357, 2000 WL 1580326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2000 | Docket: 1295558

Cited 7 times | Published

consider the statutory relocation factors found in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). Because the

Mandell v. Mandell

741 So. 2d 617, 1999 WL 770738

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1999 | Docket: 453185

Cited 7 times | Published

which enacted this provision, also amended section 61.13, Florida Statutes as follows: 61.13 Custody

Gilbertson v. Boggs

743 So. 2d 123, 1999 WL 743647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1999 | Docket: 1243601

Cited 7 times | Published

and visitation pursuant to Chapter 742 and section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes. The predecessor case

DF v. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. LF

736 So. 2d 782, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9184, 1999 WL 462098

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 1999 | Docket: 1736599

Cited 7 times | Published

to guard the best interests of the child. See § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). This is particularly

Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules

713 So. 2d 1, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 105, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 475, 1998 WL 166533

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 1998 | Docket: 1732751

Cited 7 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Some circuits may require

Sg v. Gg

666 So. 2d 203, 1995 WL 755566

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1995 | Docket: 1510848

Cited 7 times | Published

discuss only two. Appellant first argues that section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993) does not create

Regan v. Regan

660 So. 2d 1166, 1995 WL 566542

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1995 | Docket: 1637698

Cited 7 times | Published

responsibility had become "detrimental to the child." § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1993). Moreover, neither that

Vero v. Vero

659 So. 2d 1348, 1995 WL 525664

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1995 | Docket: 1748013

Cited 7 times | Published

petition seeking modification of child custody. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993).[2] The former husband

STATE, DHRS v. Lemaster

596 So. 2d 1117, 1992 WL 45702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 1992 | Docket: 1358578

Cited 7 times | Published

parent from the obligation to pay child support. § 61.13(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991); § 88.271, Fla. Stat.

Hoffman v. Foley

541 So. 2d 145, 1989 WL 30802

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1989 | Docket: 1516613

Cited 7 times | Published

of D.F.W., 497 So.2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); § 61.13(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). See generally Annotation

Wishart v. Bates

531 So. 2d 955, 1988 WL 93755

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1988 | Docket: 2508939

Cited 7 times | Published

were issued prior to the effective date of section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978), which

Stepp v. Stepp

520 So. 2d 314, 1988 WL 13708

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 1988 | Docket: 1299913

Cited 7 times | Published

the determining factor in awarding custody. *316 § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1985). In such cases, the father is

Wooten v. Wooten

510 So. 2d 1033, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1813

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 1987 | Docket: 1457322

Cited 7 times | Published

proper in given equitable circumstances. See section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985); Tash v. Oesterle

In Interest of DFW

497 So. 2d 925, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2381

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1986 | Docket: 1689774

Cited 7 times | Published

Vecellio, 313 So.2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). New section 61.13(4)(a) and (b) effective October 1, 1986, Chapter

Rhines v. Rhines

483 So. 2d 4, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2296

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 1985 | Docket: 1512001

Cited 7 times | Published

judgment no recognition of the provisions of section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1983), that shared

Mohammad v. Mohammad

358 So. 2d 610

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1978 | Docket: 1690916

Cited 7 times | Published

interest of the minor child or children. See Section 61.13(3)(g), Florida Statutes (1975). In light of

Hendry v. Hendry

340 So. 2d 942

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 1976 | Docket: 1299451

Cited 7 times | Published

and the filing of the modification petition. Section 61.13(1), F.S. 1975, provides that the court dissolving

Duke v. Duke

211 So. 3d 1078

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 2017 | Docket: 4586784

Cited 6 times | Published

specific parenting plan that complies with section 61.13(2)(b) in the final judgment is an error apparent

Hardman v. Koslowski

135 So. 3d 434, 2014 WL 949850, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3503

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2014 | Docket: 60239635

Cited 6 times | Published

with Alexander only while he was a minor. See § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). The trial court could not

Smith v. Smith

39 So. 3d 458, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9861, 2010 WL 2671285

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2010 | Docket: 2411423

Cited 6 times | Published

the best-interest factors enumerated under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2008), when it determined

Shugar v. Shugar

924 So. 2d 941, 2006 WL 859200

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2006 | Docket: 2551155

Cited 6 times | Published

petition and remand for further proceedings. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth the trial

Morales v. Morales

915 So. 2d 247, 2005 WL 3234446

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2005 | Docket: 1690686

Cited 6 times | Published

would be in the children's best interests. Section 61.13(4)(c)5., Florida Statutes (2004), provides in

Morrow v. Frommer

913 So. 2d 1195, 2005 WL 2508603

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2005 | Docket: 1331356

Cited 6 times | Published

provision regarding the child's health insurance. See § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004) ("Each order for support

Coyne v. Coyne

895 So. 2d 469, 2005 WL 292179

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2005 | Docket: 1255307

Cited 6 times | Published

detrimental to a child." The public policy behind section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2003), clearly favors shared

Maslow v. Edwards

886 So. 2d 1027, 2004 WL 2479747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 2004 | Docket: 1380441

Cited 6 times | Published

responsibility of the minor child to the mother. Section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes, provides: The court

Taylor v. Bonsall

875 So. 2d 705, 2004 WL 1223083

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2004 | Docket: 1283865

Cited 6 times | Published

pronouncement was cited, but a footnote indicates that section 61.13(1), Florida Statutes (1978), was available as

Pelliccia v. Arce

867 So. 2d 619, 2004 WL 433823

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2004 | Docket: 1386083

Cited 6 times | Published

transfer is authorized by section 61.13(4)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2002). Section 61.13(4)(c)(5) provides that

Burger v. Burger

862 So. 2d 828, 2003 WL 22900218

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2003 | Docket: 1762388

Cited 6 times | Published

properly considered the relocation factors of section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2002), when it determined

Wyckoff v. Wyckoff

820 So. 2d 350, 2002 WL 491038

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2002 | Docket: 2159296

Cited 6 times | Published

review of all of the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, the trial court finds

Gumberg v. Gumberg

755 So. 2d 710, 1999 WL 597421

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1999 | Docket: 1699438

Cited 6 times | Published

See, e.g., § 61.13(2)(a)("[t]he court shall have jurisdiction to determine custody"); § 61.13(4)(b)("[w]hen

Young v. Young

732 So. 2d 1133, 1999 WL 111139

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1999 | Docket: 1513451

Cited 6 times | Published

having considered all of the factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, the trial court finds

Brunetti v. Saul

724 So. 2d 142, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2619

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 1998 | Docket: 1410064

Cited 6 times | Published

constitutionality of section 752.01(1)(d) because section 61.13(2)(b)2.c, Florida Statutes (1995) authorizes

Brown v. Brown

714 So. 2d 475

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1998 | Docket: 461695

Cited 6 times | Published

dissolution court has continuing jurisdiction under § 61.13.[1] Although the statutes are unclear on this issue

Hardwick v. Hardwick

710 So. 2d 124, 1998 WL 173054

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 1998 | Docket: 1445364

Cited 6 times | Published

court failed to apply the factors contained in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997) which provides:

Beagle v. Beagle

654 So. 2d 1260, 1995 WL 293693

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 1995 | Docket: 1303683

Cited 6 times | Published

visitation with minor grandchildren. *1261 Section 61.13(2)(b) Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) authorized

Buckhalt v. McGhee

632 So. 2d 120, 1994 WL 33627

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1994 | Docket: 1514045

Cited 6 times | Published

custody on the grounds that Florida Statutes section 61.13(7) (1993) is unconstitutional on its face and

Russenberger v. Russenberger

623 So. 2d 1244, 1993 WL 367573

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1993 | Docket: 1183629

Cited 6 times | Published

presents the type of situation contemplated by section 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Florida Statutes. Under these circumstances

Campbell v. Campbell

584 So. 2d 125, 1991 WL 147543

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 1991 | Docket: 466834

Cited 6 times | Published

reason, the wife chose not to move pursuant to section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes for modification of

Longo v. Longo

576 So. 2d 402, 1991 WL 35028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 1991 | Docket: 1242694

Cited 6 times | Published

Seibert, 436 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1989) requires the

Filter v. Bennett

554 So. 2d 1184, 1989 WL 147977

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1989 | Docket: 2525793

Cited 6 times | Published

for the visitation rights of grandparents. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987); Wishart v. Bates, 531

Filter v. Bennett

554 So. 2d 1184, 1989 WL 147977

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1989 | Docket: 2525793

Cited 6 times | Published

for the visitation rights of grandparents. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987); Wishart v. Bates, 531

Trager v. Trager

541 So. 2d 148, 1989 WL 30825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1989 | Docket: 470487

Cited 6 times | Published

beneficiary of said life insurance policy. Section 61.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that:

Williams v. Starnes

522 So. 2d 469, 1988 WL 22259

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 1988 | Docket: 1192403

Cited 6 times | Published

at 1183, but no such authority exists under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1987), pertaining to child

Rogers v. Rogers

490 So. 2d 1017, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1373

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 1986 | Docket: 1489064

Cited 6 times | Published

determination is the best interests of the child. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, provides that the court

In Re Marriage of Kerr

486 So. 2d 708

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 1986 | Docket: 1461066

Cited 6 times | Published

has been effectively abolished in Florida by section 61.13(2)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1983) which provides:

Ramey v. Thomas

483 So. 2d 747, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 261

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 23, 1986 | Docket: 159917

Cited 6 times | Published

grandparent rights are better protected than this. See § 61.13(2)(b)2 c, Fla. Stat. (1983); Ch. 752, Fla. Stat

Gregg v. Gregg

474 So. 2d 262

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 1985 | Docket: 1482250

Cited 6 times | Published

[6] Due to statutory authority granted in section 61.13(4)-(5), Florida Statutes (1983), a court may

Golstein v. Golstein

442 So. 2d 330

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 1983 | Docket: 1484213

Cited 6 times | Published

and reverse. It is true that the wording of Section 61.13(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes (1981), which

Brown v. Brown

409 So. 2d 1133

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1982 | Docket: 525890

Cited 6 times | Published

of children of tender years: While Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A., provides for equal consideration of

Kristensen v. Kristensen

406 So. 2d 1210

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 1981 | Docket: 449874

Cited 6 times | Published

DAUKSCH, C.J. and COBB, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 61.13(3)(g), Fla. Stat. (1979). [2] See Paul v. Paul

Holland v. Holland

406 So. 2d 496

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 1981 | Docket: 2516383

Cited 6 times | Published

court at a later date to modify the award. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1979). We therefore AFFIRM as to the

Ross v. Ross

321 So. 2d 443

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 1975 | Docket: 1674694

Cited 6 times | Published

Her statement of the law is well taken. Although § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat., provides for equal consideration

Hosking v. Hosking

318 So. 2d 559

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 1975 | Docket: 1739151

Cited 6 times | Published

appellant's second point by noting that Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2) directs that the father and mother shall be

Siegel v. Zimmerman

319 So. 2d 187

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 2, 1975 | Docket: 444331

Cited 6 times | Published

upon us to take into consideration Fla. Stat. § 61.13, which places "... upon the divorced wife an equal

Dinkel v. Dinkel

305 So. 2d 90

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1974 | Docket: 457152

Cited 6 times | Published

consideration as the mother in determining custody. (F.S. 61.13(2)) In Brust v. Brust, supra, we said: "* * *

Mitri Freiha, Former Husband v. Roula Freiha, Former Wife

197 So. 3d 606, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9899, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1510

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2016 | Docket: 3090205

Cited 5 times | Published

the parties’ rights as to timesharing. Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), explicitly requires

Davis v. Lopez-Davis

162 So. 3d 19, 2014 WL 1373821, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5159

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 2014 | Docket: 60247442

Cited 5 times | Published

.. the marriage of the parties is dissolved.” § 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2009). “[T]he privilege of

Fazzaro v. Fazzaro

110 So. 3d 49, 2013 WL 845231, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3752

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2013 | Docket: 60230317

Cited 5 times | Published

would be contrary to the child’s best interests. § 61.13(2)(c)(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). Pertinent to this

Delivorias v. Delivorias

80 So. 3d 352, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19783, 2011 WL 6142788

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2011 | Docket: 2415247

Cited 5 times | Published

makeup time-sharing orders because, contrary to section 61.13(4)(c)1., Florida Statutes, the trial court failed

Cheek v. Hesik

73 So. 3d 340, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17251, 2011 WL 5138617

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 2011 | Docket: 60303377

Cited 5 times | Published

naturally fostered by such interaction”); see also § 61.13(2)(c)l., Fla. Stat. (“It is the public policy of

Bainbridge v. Pratt

68 So. 3d 310, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12249, 2011 WL 3331263

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2011 | Docket: 181332

Cited 5 times | Published

The parties are coequal in all factors of Section 61.13(3) Florida Statutes although the Court has come

Albert v. Rogers

57 So. 3d 233, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3160, 2011 WL 798635

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2011 | Docket: 60298973

Cited 5 times | Published

children’s best interests was never litigated. Section 61.13(4)(c)6., Florida Statutes (2009), provides that

Cobo v. Sierralta

13 So. 3d 493, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6234, 2009 WL 1456951

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 2009 | Docket: 1659648

Cited 5 times | Published

final judgment or otherwise. Needless to say, section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes expressly requires consideration

Greer v. Owners Insurance

434 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40790, 2006 WL 1589815

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2006 | Docket: 2300463

Cited 5 times | Published

("WYO") program. See 42 U.S.C. § 4051; 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f). However, all of the terms and conditions of

Schoditsch v. Schoditsch

888 So. 2d 709, 2004 WL 2903887

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 2004 | Docket: 1465047

Cited 5 times | Published

between the parties on a percentage basis. See § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Artuso v. Dick, 843 So

Kuttas v. Ritter

879 So. 2d 3, 2004 WL 912663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2004 | Docket: 379424

Cited 5 times | Published

remand. *5 Substantial Change in Circumstances Section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that

Berrebbi v. Clarke

870 So. 2d 172, 2004 WL 177064

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2004 | Docket: 1330652

Cited 5 times | Published

reverse. In ruling on a petition for relocation, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that

Christ v. Christ

854 So. 2d 244, 2003 WL 22056280

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2003 | Docket: 1460108

Cited 5 times | Published

child[ren] and the secondary residential parent." § 61.13(2)(d)4., Fla. Stat. (2001); Russenberger v. Russenberger

Santiago v. Santiago

830 So. 2d 922, 2002 WL 31557488

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2002 | Docket: 471360

Cited 5 times | Published

the judgment in this case, is determinative. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2001)(listing the numerous factors

O'Neill v. O'Neill

823 So. 2d 837, 2002 WL 1877098

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2002 | Docket: 1512789

Cited 5 times | Published

K., 780 So.2d 301, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Section 61.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), requires a trial

MM v. Department of Children and Families

777 So. 2d 1209, 2001 WL 173270

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 23, 2001 | Docket: 1513917

Cited 5 times | Published

review denied, 675 So.2d 928 (Fla.1996). Compare § 61.13(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (1995) ("[t]he court shall

Young v. Hector

740 So. 2d 1153, 1998 WL 329401

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 1999 | Docket: 1746437

Cited 5 times | Published

evaluating the relevant statutory factors of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court

Roski v. Roski

730 So. 2d 413, 1999 WL 234682

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 1999 | Docket: 1755194

Cited 5 times | Published

witnesses vis-a-vis the criteria set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court further

Sg v. Csg

726 So. 2d 806, 1999 WL 20516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 1999 | Docket: 1711689

Cited 5 times | Published

standard in making a custody decision under section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1995), as between a natural

O'NEILL v. Stone

721 So. 2d 393, 1998 WL 796725

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1998 | Docket: 1323142

Cited 5 times | Published

parent. Stone argues that the enactment of section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), imposes an obligation

Schoonmaker v. Schoonmaker

718 So. 2d 867, 1998 WL 552654

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 2, 1998 | Docket: 237677

Cited 5 times | Published

Bader v. Bader, 639 So.2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1997). This conclusion is supported

Steiner v. Romano-Steiner

687 So. 2d 21, 1996 WL 728348

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1996 | Docket: 1718447

Cited 5 times | Published

the trial court erred in its application of section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes in this action to modify

Willey v. Willey

683 So. 2d 647, 1996 WL 692122

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1996 | Docket: 466125

Cited 5 times | Published

420 (Fla.1993) (Barkett, J., concurring); see § 61.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1995). Second is the policy allowing

Tucker v. Greenberg

674 So. 2d 807, 1996 WL 239215

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1996 | Docket: 1194831

Cited 5 times | Published

review denied, 549 So.2d 1014 (Fla.1989). See also § 61.13(4)(c)2., Fla.Stat. (1993). It could be argued that

Abbo v. Briskin

660 So. 2d 1157, 1995 WL 565997

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1995 | Docket: 1636637

Cited 5 times | Published

the custody of minor children are found in section 61.13(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1993). When a

Garcia v. Omaha Property & Casualty Insurance

933 F. Supp. 1064, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21126, 1995 WL 871591

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 1995 | Docket: 1337154

Cited 5 times | Published

Rates: Standard Flood Insurance Policy, 44 C.F.R. § 61.13 and Part 61 App. A (1994). Private sector property

Russenberger v. Russenberger

654 So. 2d 207, 1995 WL 232506

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1995 | Docket: 1303543

Cited 5 times | Published

will participate in child-rearing after divorce. § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. The court acknowledged that courts

Dehler v. Dehler

648 So. 2d 819, 1995 WL 1661

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1995 | Docket: 1701960

Cited 5 times | Published

reasonably available for the child, as required by section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). See Butler v

In the Interest of JMZ

635 So. 2d 134, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3368, 1994 WL 122835

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1994 | Docket: 1705499

Cited 5 times | Published

appeal a final order, entered pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993),[1] designating

Nash v. Nash

624 So. 2d 370, 1993 WL 365854

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1993 | Docket: 475726

Cited 5 times | Published

erred in failing to follow the dictates of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1991), by not ordering the

Day v. LeBlanc

610 So. 2d 42, 1992 WL 355249

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1992 | Docket: 1414018

Cited 5 times | Published

opinions regarding the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1991). They concluded

Sanchez v. Sanchez

575 So. 2d 744, 1991 WL 22978

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 1991 | Docket: 1444173

Cited 5 times | Published

made the following findings as required by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1989): (a) the mother's

Gaber v. Gaber

536 So. 2d 381, 1989 WL 140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1989 | Docket: 1760002

Cited 5 times | Published

considered in determining modification of custody. See § 61.13(3)(i), Fla. Stat. (1987). Preference is not the

Ginder v. Ginder

536 So. 2d 1155, 1988 WL 139525

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1988 | Docket: 1759387

Cited 5 times | Published

the children to their father and vice-versa. Section 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1987), states in part:

Griss v. Griss

526 So. 2d 697, 1988 WL 40521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 1988 | Docket: 1679691

Cited 5 times | Published

enacted Chapter 78-5, Laws of Florida, amending Section 61.13, Florida Statutes. The amendment allowed the

Johnson v. Johnson

455 So. 2d 1332

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 1984 | Docket: 1692601

Cited 5 times | Published

responsibility as contemplated by Florida Statutes." See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983). Since appellant's actions

Menendez v. Menendez

435 So. 2d 287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1983 | Docket: 1329014

Cited 5 times | Published

shared parental responsibility as provided by section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.).[1] However

Menendez v. Menendez

435 So. 2d 287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1983 | Docket: 1329014

Cited 5 times | Published

shared parental responsibility as provided by section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.).[1] However

O'Brien v. O'Brien

407 So. 2d 374

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1981 | Docket: 1515409

Cited 5 times | Published

material, involuntary, and permanent changes. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1949); In Re Marriage of

Kirby v. Kirby

405 So. 2d 207

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1981 | Docket: 1348038

Cited 5 times | Published

circuit court has continuing jurisdiction under § 61.13, Florida Statutes (1979), to modify an award of

Kershner v. Crocker

400 So. 2d 126

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1981 | Docket: 1262666

Cited 5 times | Published

child as a tool to facilitate a reconciliation. Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that

Collier v. Collier

384 So. 2d 697

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1980 | Docket: 1269694

Cited 5 times | Published

Miller, 371 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (Supp 1978) sets forth the

Shuler v. Shuler

371 So. 2d 588

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 1979 | Docket: 1786417

Cited 5 times | Published

The sole issue for our consideration is whether § 61.13, Fla. Stat., as amended by *589 Ch. 78-5, Laws

Goodman v. Goodman

291 So. 2d 106

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 1974 | Docket: 1704704

Cited 5 times | Published

no-fault divorce law, specifically Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A. the mother of *108 children of tender

Ebaugh v. Ebaugh

282 So. 2d 14

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1973 | Docket: 1235214

Cited 5 times | Published

Fla.Jur. Dissolution of Marriage, Sec. 88; Section 61.13(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. It is the best

Aranda v. Padilla

216 So. 3d 652, 2017 WL 1363966, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5061

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2017 | Docket: 60265460

Cited 4 times | Published

sole parental responsibility to the mother. Section 61.13(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes (2013), provides that

Duke v. Duke

211 So. 3d 1078, 2017 WL 544618, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1643

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 2017 | Docket: 60294196

Cited 4 times | Published

findings required by section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2015). Section 61.13(2)(b) *1083states that

Russell v. Pasik

178 So. 3d 55, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15177

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2015 | Docket: 60294109

Cited 4 times | Published

governed by section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2014). And “[b]y its explicit provisions,” section 61.13 applies

Fazzini v. Davis

98 So. 3d 98, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11386, 2012 WL 2865488

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2012 | Docket: 60312870

Cited 4 times | Published

judgment, it is still subject to modification. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“For purposes of establishing

Schwieterman v. Schwieterman

114 So. 3d 984, 2012 WL 1885907, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8395

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 2012 | Docket: 60232035

Cited 4 times | Published

the presumption used by the court violates section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2010), which requires

A.L.G. v. J.F.D.

85 So. 3d 527

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2012 | Docket: 60307377

Cited 4 times | Published

court must consider in making its decision. See § 61.13(3)(a)-(t), Fla. Stat. (2010). The court’s decision

In Re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations—Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

78 So. 3d 1045, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 3030, 2011 WL 5829543

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 2011 | Docket: 1227055

Cited 4 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Clark v. Clark

35 So. 3d 989, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018, 2010 WL 2008789

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2010 | Docket: 1270648

Cited 4 times | Published

considering the best interests of the child under section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ogilvie v. Ogilvie

Halbert v. Morico

27 So. 3d 771, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1443, 2010 WL 476692

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 2010 | Docket: 1665059

Cited 4 times | Published

noted that it considered all of the factors in section 61.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), and it found

Moore v. Wilson

16 So. 3d 222, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11396, 2009 WL 2474978

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 14, 2009 | Docket: 1127105

Cited 4 times | Published

determination of a time-sharing schedule. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2009).

Mesibov v. Mesibov

16 So. 3d 890, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10107, 2009 WL 2190217

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2009 | Docket: 1640939

Cited 4 times | Published

considering the best interests of the child under section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ogilvie v. Ogilvie

Velazquez v. Millan

963 So. 2d 852, 2007 WL 2254822

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 8, 2007 | Docket: 1328457

Cited 4 times | Published

judgment whether or how the trial court applied section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes in making its custody

Kas v. Ret

914 So. 2d 1056, 2005 WL 3179763

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2005 | Docket: 1781502

Cited 4 times | Published

be unconstitutional. See, e.g., id. (holding section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), unconstitutional);

Sotomayor v. Sotomayor

891 So. 2d 559, 2004 WL 2481365

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 2004 | Docket: 1704417

Cited 4 times | Published

to a consideration of the factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2003), in order to resolve

Johnson v. Adair

884 So. 2d 1169, 2004 WL 2414034

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 2004 | Docket: 1281837

Cited 4 times | Published

for determining primary residence detailed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and concluded that

Wade v. Hirschman

872 So. 2d 952, 2004 WL 741564

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2004 | Docket: 1706715

Cited 4 times | Published

be the arguably lesser proof requirements of section 61.13(4)(c)(5), which gives the judge the option to

Rose v. Ford

861 So. 2d 490, 2003 WL 22849844

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 2003 | Docket: 1514153

Cited 4 times | Published

consideration of the best interests of the child. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1991). This court has previously discouraged

Buonavolonta v. Buonavolonta

846 So. 2d 649, 2003 WL 21241590

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2003 | Docket: 1709803

Cited 4 times | Published

when it considered the petition, we reverse. Section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2001), sets forth the

Bini v. Bini

828 So. 2d 470, 2002 WL 31322593

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2002 | Docket: 429910

Cited 4 times | Published

in accordance with the statutory criteria of section 61.13(2)(d), a relocation of the primary custodian

Leeds v. Adamse

832 So. 2d 125, 2002 WL 1972124

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2002 | Docket: 1336181

Cited 4 times | Published

will be in the best interest of the children. § 61.13(1)(a) Fla. Stat (2001). Until recently, relocation

Childers v. Riley

823 So. 2d 246, 2002 WL 1798751

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2002 | Docket: 458656

Cited 4 times | Published

better custodian of party's children). Moreover, section 61.13(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2001), provides

Pribble v. Pribble

800 So. 2d 743, 2001 WL 1589218

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2001 | Docket: 1283308

Cited 4 times | Published

there is a substantial change of circumstances. § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In Ledbetter v. Bell, 698 So

Gore v. Peck

800 So. 2d 273, 2001 WL 1205377

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2001 | Docket: 1683602

Cited 4 times | Published

obligation to provide child support are unrelated. § 61.13(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The mother and the father

Muniz v. Muniz

789 So. 2d 370, 2001 WL 293088

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2001 | Docket: 335082

Cited 4 times | Published

detailed order reviewing the criteria set forth in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), finds the parents

Kuntz v. Kuntz

780 So. 2d 1022, 2001 WL 313592

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2001 | Docket: 355068

Cited 4 times | Published

by the trial court. On the relocation issue, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2000) "imposes an intensely

Browning v. Browning

784 So. 2d 1145, 2001 WL 194063

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2001 | Docket: 1744205

Cited 4 times | Published

statutory authority for such insurance provisions. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1991).[3] Although the trial court

In Re NZB

779 So. 2d 508, 2000 WL 1800557

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2000 | Docket: 2540242

Cited 4 times | Published

children." This language tracks the language in section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1997). The grandmother

Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure & Family Law Forms

810 So. 2d 1, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 13, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2272, 2000 WL 1352932

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2000 | Docket: 64813197

Cited 4 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Some circuits may require

McEwen v. Rodriguez

766 So. 2d 316, 2000 WL 232638

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 2000 | Docket: 1330206

Cited 4 times | Published

consideration of the bests interests of the child. § 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1991). This court has previously discouraged

Bardol v. Martin

763 So. 2d 1119, 1999 WL 1243870

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1999 | Docket: 1278234

Cited 4 times | Published

noncustodial parent. Filling a similar role is section 61.13(1)(a), which authorizes the judge in a dissolution

Chant v. Chant

725 So. 2d 445, 1999 WL 49816

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1999 | Docket: 1688934

Cited 4 times | Published

the best interests of children set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995), the investigator

Fisher v. Fisher

722 So. 2d 243, 1998 WL 846072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 1998 | Docket: 1241414

Cited 4 times | Published

substantial change in the parties' circumstances. See § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); Kirchen v. Kirchen, 595

Flannery v. Crowe

720 So. 2d 308, 1998 WL 821796

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1998 | Docket: 1719216

Cited 4 times | Published

in favor of her relocating with the child. Section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), however, specifically

Horne v. Horne

711 So. 2d 1310, 1998 WL 282768

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1998 | Docket: 1337863

Cited 4 times | Published

alimony, if any, to be awarded."[1] In addition, section 61.13(3) provides that "[f]or the purpose of shared

Julian v. Bryan

710 So. 2d 1037, 1998 WL 264831

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 1998 | Docket: 1731563

Cited 4 times | Published

interest of the child. Under the factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995), this consideration

Davis v. DEPT. OF REV. ON BEHALF OF DAVIS

689 So. 2d 433, 1997 WL 111334

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1997 | Docket: 1477034

Cited 4 times | Published

fifteen years back child support. Although section 61.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that "[w]hen

Carpenter v. Berge

686 So. 2d 759, 1997 WL 14132

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1997 | Docket: 1675987

Cited 4 times | Published

custody may be awarded in certain situations. See § 61.13(7), Fla.Stat.[1]See generally Russo v. Burgos,

State Dept. of Revenue v. Ortega

682 So. 2d 589, 1996 WL 604178

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1996 | Docket: 1276144

Cited 4 times | Published

parent from the obligation to pay child support. § 61.13(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991); § 88.271, Fla. Stat.

Ward v. Ward

742 So. 2d 250, 1996 WL 491692

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1996 | Docket: 1354741

Cited 4 times | Published

III. On appeal, appellant also argues that section 61.13(2)(b)2., Florida *255 Statutes (1995), requires

Adams v. Adams

677 So. 2d 6, 1996 WL 302357

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1996 | Docket: 1689900

Cited 4 times | Published

Victoria, subject to visitation with Tyrone. See § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994). The evidence regarding

Chittenden v. Boyd

669 So. 2d 1136, 1996 WL 123160

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1996 | Docket: 530848

Cited 4 times | Published

judgment contained the findings required by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1993), to determine the

Rohlfs v. Rohlfs

666 So. 2d 568, 1996 WL 13987

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1996 | Docket: 1510872

Cited 4 times | Published

DCA), review denied, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1992); § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1993). [8] Our holding, however

Griffin v. Griffin

665 So. 2d 352, 1995 WL 761041

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1995 | Docket: 1351823

Cited 4 times | Published

Nichols, 432 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes, requires that parental

Cherradi v. Lavoie

662 So. 2d 751, 1995 WL 675315

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1995 | Docket: 1282860

Cited 4 times | Published

several of the statutory factors enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994): (1) Both

Boyt v. Romanow

664 So. 2d 995, 1995 WL 594348

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 1995 | Docket: 1655903

Cited 4 times | Published

61 affect this case: 1. In pertinent part, section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes was amended as follows:

Crooks v. Crooks

657 So. 2d 918, 1995 WL 380366

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1995 | Docket: 2523862

Cited 4 times | Published

change and restraining order is founded on section 61.13, Florida Statutes, section 741.30, Florida Statutes

Ketola v. Ketola

636 So. 2d 850, 1994 WL 171591

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 1994 | Docket: 1361397

Cited 4 times | Published

doctrine when performing the analysis required by section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1993), and reaching its decision

Kuharcik v. Kuharcik

629 So. 2d 224, 1993 WL 502190

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1993 | Docket: 1263578

Cited 4 times | Published

shared parental responsibility of the minor child. § 61.13(2)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (1991). "In ordering shared

Calle v. Calle

625 So. 2d 988, 1993 WL 432005

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 1993 | Docket: 473989

Cited 4 times | Published

Florida, the legislature's 1993 amendment to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1991), but rather find inapplicable

Washington v. Washington

613 So. 2d 594, 1993 WL 32452

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1993 | Docket: 454187

Cited 4 times | Published

made by the Seminole County circuit court. Section 61.13(1)(1)(a)[2] gives the original circuit court

Gutierrez v. Medina

613 So. 2d 528, 1993 WL 15632

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1993 | Docket: 454340

Cited 4 times | Published

responsibility for making educational decisions. § 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Fla. Stat. (1991); Tamari, 599 So.2d

Race v. Sullivan

612 So. 2d 660, 1993 WL 8903

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1993 | Docket: 1262121

Cited 4 times | Published

responsibility, which is authorized only pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. The Appellant/mother

Braman v. Braman

602 So. 2d 682, 1992 WL 164088

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 1992 | Docket: 1321466

Cited 4 times | Published

James is based upon the principle, expressed in section 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes, that shared parental

Lovelady v. Lovelady

576 So. 2d 946, 1991 WL 41970

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 1991 | Docket: 1669813

Cited 4 times | Published

responsibility for the children, as is mandated by section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1989), "unless the

Kent v. Burdick

573 So. 2d 61, 1990 WL 216287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 1990 | Docket: 1518823

Cited 4 times | Published

recognized that the shared responsibility statute, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1989), applies to both legitimate

Usher v. Usher

568 So. 2d 471, 1990 WL 145606

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 1990 | Docket: 533549

Cited 4 times | Published

review denied, 418 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1982). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1989), provides the court

Izmery v. Izmery

559 So. 2d 1211, 1990 WL 29482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1990 | Docket: 1751513

Cited 4 times | Published

Goodman, 291 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); but see § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1979), a subtle distinction like this

Vena v. Vena

556 So. 2d 436, 1990 WL 118

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1990 | Docket: 542560

Cited 4 times | Published

valid consideration for the trial court. See *438 § 61.13(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987) ("For purposes of shared

Fischer v. Fischer

544 So. 2d 1079, 1989 WL 61124

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1989 | Docket: 1709769

Cited 4 times | Published

the lineage beyond the grandparents. Under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1987), grandparents can be

Martin v. Martin

480 So. 2d 683, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 56

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 1985 | Docket: 1220926

Cited 4 times | Published

rest exclusively with the noncustodial parent. § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1983); Condon v. Condon, 295 So

The Florida Bar v. Furman

451 So. 2d 808

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 1984 | Docket: 444673

Cited 4 times | Published

construed and interpreted the legal effects of Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, pertaining to shared parental

Sandor v. Sandor

444 So. 2d 1029

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1984 | Docket: 1510636

Cited 4 times | Published

visitation rights to the grandparents of a minor child. § 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1982). As custody

Alonso v. Alonso

432 So. 2d 174

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1983 | Docket: 1147166

Cited 4 times | Published

shared parental responsibility pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1982), since it is clear

Ault v. Ault

431 So. 2d 302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1983 | Docket: 1512066

Cited 4 times | Published

circumstances of each party and the nature of the case. § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1981); Peak v. Peak, 411 So.2d

Cherna v. Cherna

427 So. 2d 395

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1983 | Docket: 1478069

Cited 4 times | Published

judicial responsibility by the enactment of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides, in

Cyr v. Cyr

354 So. 2d 140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 1978 | Docket: 2584172

Cited 4 times | Published

319 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1975). Of course, under Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court retains

Eberly v. Eberly

344 So. 2d 886

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1977 | Docket: 1517796

Cited 4 times | Published

means properly taken under Section 65.14, now Section 61.13(4), Florida *888 Statutes (1975), to secure

Anderson v. Anderson

289 So. 2d 463

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 1974 | Docket: 1694335

Cited 4 times | Published

are to be treated equal in considering custody. § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat., F.S.A. This court has recognized

Haley v. Edwards

233 So. 2d 647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1970 | Docket: 1767375

Cited 4 times | Published

proceeding which commenced August 15, 1969. Section 61.13, F.S. 1967, F.S.A. gives the court in a divorce

Hull v. Hull

273 So. 3d 1135

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2019 | Docket: 64717532

Cited 3 times | Published

best interest of the child or as set forth in [section] 61.13," which *1137itself separately lists twenty

MICHAEL LENNON v. SIMONE LENNON

264 So. 3d 1084

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2019 | Docket: 14530835

Cited 3 times | Published

child to receive mental health treatment. See § 61.13(2)(b)(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).1

Ted K. Brown, former husband v. Valerie Hays Brown, Former Wife

180 So. 3d 1070

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2015 | Docket: 3014835

Cited 3 times | Published

considering the best interests of the child under section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Mesibov v. Mesibov

Dickson v. Dickson

169 So. 3d 287, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10854, 2015 WL 4366487

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 2015 | Docket: 60248876

Cited 3 times | Published

time-sharing schedule largely met the requirements of section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), it did not include

Holland v. Holland

140 So. 3d 1155, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9985, 2014 WL 2925282

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 2014 | Docket: 60241389

Cited 3 times | Published

is in the best interests of the children. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2013); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584

Elbaum v. Elbaum

141 So. 3d 658, 2014 WL 2741317, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9201

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2014 | Docket: 60242003

Cited 3 times | Published

was foreseeable and contemplated, because Florida Statute 61.13(3) was in effect at the time this Agreement

Nunes v. Nunes

112 So. 3d 696, 2013 WL 1890284, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7368

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 2013 | Docket: 60231231

Cited 3 times | Published

and at the expense of the noncompliant parent. § 61.13(4)(c)l., Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added). The

Eckert v. Eckert

107 So. 3d 1235, 2013 WL 692082, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3199

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2013 | Docket: 60228615

Cited 3 times | Published

might have arrived at that amount. Pursuant to section 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), a court may

Essex v. Davis

116 So. 3d 445, 2012 WL 2015419, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9073

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2012 | Docket: 60232352

Cited 3 times | Published

Pennsylvania after relying on the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. Id. The mother argued

Bachman v. McLinn

65 So. 3d 71, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8444, 2011 WL 2278998

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2011 | Docket: 60301776

Cited 3 times | Published

SHARING The legislature of our state amended section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2008), effective October

Beharry v. Drake

52 So. 3d 790, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20140, 2010 WL 5391532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 2010 | Docket: 60297842

Cited 3 times | Published

$100,000.00 life insurance policy. We agree. Section 61.13(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes (2007) authorizes

Martinez v. ABINADER

37 So. 3d 944, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8239, 2010 WL 2330252

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2010 | Docket: 1668677

Cited 3 times | Published

the child's "environment," as referenced in section 61.13(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2007), with the physical

Corey v. Corey

29 So. 3d 315, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20384, 2009 WL 5125084

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 2009 | Docket: 2410295

Cited 3 times | Published

After an analysis of the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2007), the trial court

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

20 So. 3d 173, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 298, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 785, 2009 WL 775400

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2009 | Docket: 60294181

Cited 3 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Amendments to Approved Family Law Forms

20 So. 3d 173

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2009 | Docket: 751733

Cited 3 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Snowden v. Snowden

985 So. 2d 584, 2008 WL 2219770

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2008 | Docket: 1253940

Cited 3 times | Published

party sought to enforce the provision. Under section 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes, the court is required

Paskiewicz v. Paskiewicz

967 So. 2d 277, 2007 WL 2780902

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2007 | Docket: 1454489

Cited 3 times | Published

[sic] a home. The Court has considered Florida Statute 61.13, subparts (2) and (3) regarding whether

Rahall v. Cheaib-Rahall

937 So. 2d 1223, 2006 WL 2707373

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2006 | Docket: 1513156

Cited 3 times | Published

by the shared parental responsibility law, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2004), and must be based

Kasdorf v. Kasdorf

931 So. 2d 257, 2006 WL 1686407

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2006 | Docket: 426032

Cited 3 times | Published

these findings to the statutory factors of section 61.13, Florida Statutes. The wife raises an issue

Smith v. Smith

927 So. 2d 118, 2006 WL 1098266

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2006 | Docket: 1765709

Cited 3 times | Published

to requests to relocate, *120 contained in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). In this appeal

Robinson-Wilson v. Wilson

932 So. 2d 330, 2006 WL 437507

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2006 | Docket: 1684648

Cited 3 times | Published

and costs is proper for two reasons: under section 61.13(4)(c)1 Florida Statutes (2004), and as part

Forbes v. Chapin

917 So. 2d 948, 2005 WL 3478555

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2005 | Docket: 1509460

Cited 3 times | Published

Sullivan v. Sapp, 866 So.2d 28 (Fla.2004), that section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), is unconstitutional

Rodriguez v. Williams

911 So. 2d 170, 2005 WL 1965915

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2005 | Docket: 1501008

Cited 3 times | Published

the best interests of the child as enumerated in § 61.13(3). State ex rel. Sparks v. Reeves, 97 So.2d 18

Adams v. Shiver

890 So. 2d 1199, 2005 WL 40897

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 2005 | Docket: 511328

Cited 3 times | Published

relocation request. The order on appeal references section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2003), several times, but

Doyle v. Owens

881 So. 2d 717, 2004 WL 2047367

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2004 | Docket: 1748722

Cited 3 times | Published

four years old. At issue is the effect, under section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (2002), of the father's

Porzio v. Porzio

812 So. 2d 485, 2002 WL 360668

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2002 | Docket: 1364308

Cited 3 times | Published

during the pendency of the dissolution case. Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides in part that

Willis v. Willis

818 So. 2d 530, 2002 WL 54033

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2002 | Docket: 1169587

Cited 3 times | Published

tracked the statutory criteria set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2000). Of the twelve factors

Lottinger-Serraes v. Serraes

774 So. 2d 959, 2001 WL 50495

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 2001 | Docket: 1330894

Cited 3 times | Published

to dismiss his petition alleging that, under section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1999) (giving jurisdiction

Canida v. Canida

751 So. 2d 647, 1999 WL 1241948

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1999 | Docket: 1712566

Cited 3 times | Published

responsibility of their minor child pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1989); and (2) the minor

Gerov v. Holter

731 So. 2d 152, 1999 WL 247102

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1999 | Docket: 1408591

Cited 3 times | Published

further considered the factors set forth in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), and found that

Richardson v. Richardson

734 So. 2d 1063, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 165

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1999 | Docket: 1731103

Cited 3 times | Published

application of a best interest standard pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. We conclude that insofar

Grimaldi v. Grimaldi

721 So. 2d 820, 1998 WL 874875

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1998 | Docket: 1694515

Cited 3 times | Published

detrimental to the child. Florida Statutes section 61.13(2)(b)2 states in relevant part that "[t]he court

Kochinsky v. Moore

698 So. 2d 397, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2040

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 1997 | Docket: 434539

Cited 3 times | Published

that the shared parental responsibility law, section 61.13(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, is applicable to

Packard v. Packard

697 So. 2d 1292, 1997 WL 528285

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 1997 | Docket: 1777544

Cited 3 times | Published

by this record and the factors mandated by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995). Because we cannot

Ruffridge v. Ruffridge

687 So. 2d 48, 1997 WL 26466

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1997 | Docket: 1718444

Cited 3 times | Published

child custody between parents is not favored. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, does not include rotating

Russo v. Burgos

675 So. 2d 216, 1996 WL 295051

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1996 | Docket: 1694603

Cited 3 times | Published

grandparents' counterpetition for custody is based on section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides:

Card v. Card

659 So. 2d 1228, 1995 WL 502084

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 1995 | Docket: 1463314

Cited 3 times | Published

his son. This is also the state's interest, section 61.13(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1993). Allowing the

Parker v. Parker

655 So. 2d 233, 1995 WL 331443

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 1995 | Docket: 1327236

Cited 3 times | Published

made for the benefit of the parties' child. See § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993). However, we do agree

STATE, DEPT. OF HRS v. Sandidge

651 So. 2d 1261, 1995 WL 104272

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1995 | Docket: 1518234

Cited 3 times | Published

terminating child support in the instant case. Section 61.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides: When

Kuutti v. Kuutti

645 So. 2d 80, 1994 WL 617049

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1994 | Docket: 1223239

Cited 3 times | Published

"tender years" doctrine has been abrogated by section 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes. We affirm an amended

Manning v. Manning

600 So. 2d 1274, 1992 WL 138088

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1992 | Docket: 538958

Cited 3 times | Published

presented by this case is conferred by statute. § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). The statute grants authority

Carroll v. Carroll

593 So. 2d 1131, 1992 WL 20015

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 7, 1992 | Docket: 446288

Cited 3 times | Published

visitation rights by the custodial parent. See § 61.13(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1989). Both natural parents

Kent v. Burdick

591 So. 2d 994, 1991 WL 265082

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1991 | Docket: 1528168

Cited 3 times | Published

recognized that the shared responsibility statute, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1989), applies to both legitimate

Lee v. Meeks

592 So. 2d 282, 1991 WL 265072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1991 | Docket: 1728270

Cited 3 times | Published

seek custody of a child in a dissolution case. § 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (1989); Ruyle v. Murphy,

Creel v. Creel

568 So. 2d 942, 1990 WL 129925

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 11, 1990 | Docket: 1526599

Cited 3 times | Published

substantial change in the circumstance of the parties." § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). A substantial change of

Dixon v. Melton

565 So. 2d 1378, 1990 WL 110302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1990 | Docket: 1403760

Cited 3 times | Published

1990. Appellants are correct in asserting that section 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Florida Statutes, does not permit

Hinshelwood v. Hinshelwood

564 So. 2d 141, 1990 WL 74059

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1990 | Docket: 1294479

Cited 3 times | Published

special needs of the parties' two minor children. Section 61.13(5) provides that the court may make specific

Gardner v. Gardner

545 So. 2d 339, 1989 WL 50271

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 1989 | Docket: 1702859

Cited 3 times | Published

the statutory criteria to be considered under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1987), but it is no panacea

Peaden v. Slatcoff

522 So. 2d 959, 1988 WL 23009

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1988 | Docket: 1191991

Cited 3 times | Published

between parents "may include ... education." Section 61.13(2)(b)2 a, Florida Statutes. But the order did

Boylan v. Cooper

482 So. 2d 584, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 359

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1986 | Docket: 1770018

Cited 3 times | Published

[1] that appears to me to be in conflict with section 61.13(1), Florida Statutes (1983), which permits modification

Bache v. Bashir

482 So. 2d 546, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 345

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1986 | Docket: 1769123

Cited 3 times | Published

primarily upon the best interests of the child. § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1983). Various factors enter

Iljazi v. Iljazi

436 So. 2d 326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1983 | Docket: 1339573

Cited 3 times | Published

the conditions and limitations set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). The law specifically

Strickland v. Wedekind

436 So. 2d 250

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 1983 | Docket: 214323

Cited 3 times | Published

father to shared parental responsibility under section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.), because

Vanden Bosch v. Elkins

419 So. 2d 1127

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 1982 | Docket: 1586162

Cited 3 times | Published

substantial change in the circumstances of the parties." § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1981); see Wood v. Wood, 272 So

Liebler v. Liebler

413 So. 2d 1246

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1982 | Docket: 1499017

Cited 3 times | Published

equitable powers accorded to the trial court. § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). As to the wife's claim of

Liebler v. Liebler

413 So. 2d 1246

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1982 | Docket: 1499017

Cited 3 times | Published

equitable powers accorded to the trial court. § 61.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). As to the wife's claim of

Nalley v. Nalley

406 So. 2d 1240

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1981 | Docket: 449867

Cited 3 times | Published

which is in the best interests of the child. Section 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). The denial of visitation

Horn v. Horn

398 So. 2d 935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1981 | Docket: 1326448

Cited 3 times | Published

from. It has long been recognized, pursuant to Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1977), that modification

Dykes v. Dykes

395 So. 2d 188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1981 | Docket: 1693058

Cited 3 times | Published

in awarding custody to the father. Although section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that the father

Osteryoung v. Leibowitz

371 So. 2d 1068

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1979 | Docket: 1786844

Cited 3 times | Published

" [emphasis added] This section is codified Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1978). We affirm the

Taylor v. Schilt

292 So. 2d 47

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 1974 | Docket: 454829

Cited 3 times | Published

preference: the statute has changed that. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A. (1971). It is so because, considering

Wood v. Wood

272 So. 2d 14

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1973 | Docket: 2584415

Cited 3 times | Published

However, appellant overlooks a provision of Fla. Stat. 61.13(1), F.S.A., which is governing in this instance

Stamm v. Stamm

266 So. 2d 413

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 1972 | Docket: 1298800

Cited 3 times | Published

he continue as guardian, especially in view of § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat., F.S.A., which provides: "... [u]pon

RYAN MATTHEW TRITSCHLER v. HOLLY MARIE TRITSCHLER

273 So. 3d 1161

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2019 | Docket: 15738234

Cited 2 times | Published

of the child support amount in violation of section 61.13(1)(a)(1)(a). While the Wife agrees that the

Buschor v. Buschor

252 So. 3d 833

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2018 | Docket: 64686087

Cited 2 times | Published

consider the best interest factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2015), or the factors regarding

Ness v. Martinez

249 So. 3d 754

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2018 | Docket: 64683355

Cited 2 times | Published

So.2d 1165, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ; see also § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. Appellant asserts that the court's

GILBERT RAMOS v. PAULA RAMOS

230 So. 3d 893

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2017 | Docket: 6232651

Cited 2 times | Published

Former Husband to purchase life insurance. Section 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), states: “To

Ziruolo v. Ziruolo

217 So. 3d 1170, 2017 WL 1536066, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2017 | Docket: 60265637

Cited 2 times | Published

cases unless it would be detrimental to the child. § 61.13(2)(c)2., Fla. Stat. “This relationship contemplates

Riddle v. Riddle

214 So. 3d 694, 2017 WL 1177604, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4178

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2017 | Docket: 60264218

Cited 2 times | Published

interests of the child or on the factors in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, which dictates in part

McClure v. Beck

212 So. 3d 396, 2017 WL 922378, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3111

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2017 | Docket: 60263357

Cited 2 times | Published

have ultimate responsibility to comply with section 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Florida Statutes (2015). Id. at 1194

Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson

211 So. 3d 137, 2017 WL 514336, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2017 | Docket: 60262541

Cited 2 times | Published

support was otherwise agreed to by the parties. See § 61.13(l)(a)l.a., Fla. Stat. (2015) (“All child support

Koch v. Koch

207 So. 3d 914, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14510

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2016 | Docket: 63631900

Cited 2 times | Published

be harmful to the child.” However, because section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015) requires Florida

Magdziak v. Sullivan

185 So. 3d 1292, 2016 WL 742397

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2016 | Docket: 3045497

Cited 2 times | Published

requirements for a sufficient parenting plan, section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), provides:

Suni L. Reed, n/k/a Suni L. Meyers v. Christopher J. Reed

182 So. 3d 837, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 170, 2016 WL 64702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 6, 2016 | Docket: 3026015

Cited 2 times | Published

visitation. The mother appeals. Pursuant to section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2014),. “[a] determination

Perez v. Fay

160 So. 3d 459, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 811, 2015 WL 292016

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 23, 2015 | Docket: 2627245

Cited 2 times | Published

Hous. Chron., Aug. 23, 2000, at A26). Under section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), the trial court

McGee v. McGee

145 So. 3d 955, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13235, 2014 WL 4197495

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2014 | Docket: 60242790

Cited 2 times | Published

47.122, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). See also § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (providing that in modification

Blackburn v. Blackburn

103 So. 3d 941, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20502, 2012 WL 5974104

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2012 | Docket: 60227263

Cited 2 times | Published

on the majority of the factors outlined in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2010). His recommendations

Hoff v. Hoff

100 So. 3d 1164, 2012 WL 4511355, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16729

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2012 | Docket: 60225541

Cited 2 times | Published

of the child or on the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2011), regarding the temporary

Cole v. Cole

95 So. 3d 369, 2012 WL 3101614, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12357

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2012 | Docket: 60311194

Cited 2 times | Published

relating to the obligations could be commenced. See § 61.13(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2011); Overbey v. Overbey

Tullier v. Tullier

98 So. 3d 84, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11287, 2012 WL 2813858

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2012 | Docket: 60312724

Cited 2 times | Published

substantial, competent evidence. We disagree. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: For purposes

Eisele v. Eisele

91 So. 3d 873, 2012 WL 1889271, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8393

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 2012 | Docket: 60309996

Cited 2 times | Published

presented evidence on the issue. It is true that section 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that

Alg v. Jfd

85 So. 3d 527, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5171, 2012 WL 1109026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2012 | Docket: 2413146

Cited 2 times | Published

court must consider in making its decision. See § 61.13(3)(a)-(t), Fla. Stat. (2010). The court's decision

Knowles v. Knowles

79 So. 3d 870, 2012 WL 385544, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1776

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2012 | Docket: 2359858

Cited 2 times | Published

and unanticipated change in circumstances. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2011) ("A determination of parental

Sparks v. Sparks

75 So. 3d 861, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20273, 2011 WL 6347897

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2011 | Docket: 2525502

Cited 2 times | Published

agreement is in the best interests of the child. Section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), unequivocally

A.F. v. R.P.B.

100 So. 3d 71, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17456, 2011 WL 5253028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2011 | Docket: 60225924

Cited 2 times | Published

the court relied on the considerations of section 61.13(3)(a)-(t) in making its time-sharing determination

Straney v. Floethe

58 So. 3d 374, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4870, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 746

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2011 | Docket: 2362074

Cited 2 times | Published

establishes a parenting plan under the new statute, section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2008), and modifies the

Resor v. Welling

44 So. 3d 656, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14194, 2010 WL 3714589

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 2010 | Docket: 60295619

Cited 2 times | Published

on the convenience of the parties. We agree. Section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2009), authorizes two

Hahn v. Hahn

42 So. 3d 945, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12723, 2010 WL 3418377

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 2010 | Docket: 2397169

Cited 2 times | Published

retroactively applying the 2008 amendments to section 61.13, Florida Statutes,[1] in order to decide issues

Rashid v. Rashid

35 So. 3d 992, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7015, 2010 WL 2008701

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2010 | Docket: 1646054

Cited 2 times | Published

finds that it would be detrimental to the child. § 61.13(2)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2006).[3] The courts have

Kelly v. Colston

32 So. 3d 186, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4860, 2010 WL 1445180

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 2010 | Docket: 1198772

Cited 2 times | Published

accordance with the best interests of the child ...." § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). The determination of

Fuller v. Fuller

13 So. 3d 1108, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9760, 2009 WL 2071139

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 2009 | Docket: 1659090

Cited 2 times | Published

evaluate the non-inclusive factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2007), and determine what

Gerencser v. Mills

4 So. 3d 22, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2226, 2009 WL 211035

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2009 | Docket: 60295049

Cited 2 times | Published

applying the best interests of the child test. See § 61.13(2)00,(3), Fla. Stat. (2007).1 Paragraph 5 of the

Vitale v. Vitale

994 So. 2d 1242, 2008 WL 4922727

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 2008 | Docket: 1217484

Cited 2 times | Published

child or where the final judgment was rendered. § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). The statute also authorizes

Berry v. Berry

992 So. 2d 898, 2008 WL 4682520

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2008 | Docket: 321828

Cited 2 times | Published

findings regarding the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2006), the trial court

Burnett v. Burnett

995 So. 2d 519, 2008 WL 2219567

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2008 | Docket: 1284536

Cited 2 times | Published

specifically stated that the factor provided for in section 61.13(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2007), which requires

BM v. Department of Children & Families

981 So. 2d 1229, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6874, 2008 WL 2038385

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 2008 | Docket: 1515736

Cited 2 times | Published

and continuing contact with both parents." See § 61.13(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). A parent's illegal

Guntner v. Jennings

980 So. 2d 1185, 2008 WL 1827485

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2008 | Docket: 1419746

Cited 2 times | Published

child custody and child support orders. Under section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2007): The circuit

Peacock v. Peacock

973 So. 2d 501, 2007 WL 4322065

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2007 | Docket: 1293357

Cited 2 times | Published

considered the statutory factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2005), in reaching its

Howle v. Howle

967 So. 2d 435, 2007 WL 3170184

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2007 | Docket: 1454333

Cited 2 times | Published

final judgment of dissolution, were governed by section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes.[2]Cecemski v. Cecemski

Pomeranz v. Pomeranz

961 So. 2d 1068, 2007 WL 2119142

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2007 | Docket: 468656

Cited 2 times | Published

including education and healthcare, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Florida Statutes (2004). Four months

Knifley v. Knifley

944 So. 2d 1136, 2006 WL 3523543

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2006 | Docket: 2579310

Cited 2 times | Published

disputed custody cases. We decline to do so. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth numerous

Cecena v. Chambers

938 So. 2d 646, 2006 WL 2871862

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2006 | Docket: 1254067

Cited 2 times | Published

modification of custody, the trial court relied on section 61.13(4)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2003). That statute

Giangrande v. Henao

898 So. 2d 1104, 2005 WL 711649

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2005 | Docket: 2537149

Cited 2 times | Published

court also reviewed the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3)(a)-(m), Florida Statutes (2003), and found

Amir v. Gannon

896 So. 2d 793, 2005 WL 176623

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 2005 | Docket: 1282990

Cited 2 times | Published

enforced by another chancery court. Moreover, section 61.13(2)(c) provides that the circuit court in the

Swanson v. Swanson

888 So. 2d 117, 2004 WL 2729696

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 2004 | Docket: 1327698

Cited 2 times | Published

to the husband's petition for modification. Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), requires every

Hastings v. Rigsbee

875 So. 2d 772, 2004 WL 1389114

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2004 | Docket: 1683975

Cited 2 times | Published

payment of child support was improper); see also § 61.13(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("When a noncustodial

Glasgow v. Wolfe

873 So. 2d 483, 2004 WL 1068137

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 2004 | Docket: 1451139

Cited 2 times | Published

mother, pursuant to the factors enumerated in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2001), we find no abuse of

Ward v. Ward

874 So. 2d 634, 2004 WL 784857

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 1738069

Cited 2 times | Published

Hysells, under the aegis of Florida Statutes section 61.13(7), and relying *636 on the custody agreement

Cissel v. Cissel

845 So. 2d 993, 2003 WL 21203336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2003 | Docket: 1728855

Cited 2 times | Published

assets which may be suitable for that purpose." § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002). As the statutes require

Davis v. Weinbaum

843 So. 2d 290, 2003 WL 365904

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2003 | Docket: 1243834

Cited 2 times | Published

ruled that the grandparents had standing under section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes, providing that under certain

Bassett v. Saunders

835 So. 2d 1198, 2002 WL 31889510

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2002 | Docket: 1754905

Cited 2 times | Published

parent from child support obligations. See section 61.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2000) (providing that

Bassett v. Saunders

835 So. 2d 1198, 2002 WL 31889510

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2002 | Docket: 1754905

Cited 2 times | Published

parent from child support obligations. See section 61.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2000) (providing that

Sullivan v. Sapp

829 So. 2d 951, 2002 WL 31421937

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 2002 | Docket: 1733667

Cited 2 times | Published

involved in the paternity action, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001).[1] *952

Dietrich v. Winters

798 So. 2d 864, 2001 WL 1359082

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2001 | Docket: 1238718

Cited 2 times | Published

carefully examined the factors set forth in section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), before making

Ezp v. Hp, Jr.

756 So. 2d 188, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4196, 2000 WL 346141

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2000 | Docket: 471258

Cited 2 times | Published

the father or the child turns [eighteen]." Section 61.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides: When

House v. Bankers Ins.

43 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5441, 1999 WL 221858

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1999 | Docket: 65970438

Cited 2 times | Published

policies to private insurance companies. 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f) (1999). However, the language of WYO policies

Enyeart v. Stull

715 So. 2d 320, 1998 WL 412516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 1998 | Docket: 1717093

Cited 2 times | Published

parent begins with an advantage over the other. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1995). However, when a trial court

Stelk v. Stelk

699 So. 2d 811, 1997 WL 590084

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1997 | Docket: 1472161

Cited 2 times | Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the child. See § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Griffin v. Griffin, 665

Mj v. Ab

694 So. 2d 888, 1997 WL 318044

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 1997 | Docket: 2513263

Cited 2 times | Published

could visit her father at a Florida prison. See § 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (1995). Our record lacks

Merian v. Merhige

690 So. 2d 678, 1997 WL 133931

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1997 | Docket: 436890

Cited 2 times | Published

because of a claim of nonpayment of child support. § 61.13(4)(a), Fla.Stat. [7] There would, of course, be

Bilbo v. Bilbo

688 So. 2d 1031, 1997 WL 101105

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 1997 | Docket: 2537429

Cited 2 times | Published

jurisdictional requirements set forth in the UCCJA. Id.; § 61.13(2)(b)(1); § 61.1308, Fla.Stat. (1995). None of

Allan v. Allan

666 So. 2d 170, 1995 WL 675035

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1995 | Docket: 140082

Cited 2 times | Published

determine what is in the best interests of the child. § 61.13(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (1993). The general *171 rule

Rosen v. Rosen

655 So. 2d 153, 1995 WL 254362

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 1995 | Docket: 1696902

Cited 2 times | Published

its reason for failing to enter such award. Section 61.13(1)(b), provides that "[e]ach order for child

Jarrell v. Jarrell

630 So. 2d 626, 1994 WL 1512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1994 | Docket: 481271

Cited 2 times | Published

the child. With respect to medical insurance, section 61.13(1)(b) provides that each order for child support

Carbonell v. Carbonell

618 So. 2d 326, 1993 WL 152224

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 1993 | Docket: 1720322

Cited 2 times | Published

support. Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1973); § 61.13(1)(b)2, (c), Fla. Stat. (1991). In the instant

Gibson v. Gibson

596 So. 2d 1223, 1992 WL 71542

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1992 | Docket: 1707656

Cited 2 times | Published

insurance at a reasonable rate as contemplated in section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), or otherwise

Hosseini v. Hosseini

564 So. 2d 548, 1990 WL 98463

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 1990 | Docket: 1294430

Cited 2 times | Published

petition for modification of child support. Section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides for modification

Sprunger v. Sprunger

534 So. 2d 925, 1988 WL 131608

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1988 | Docket: 1295631

Cited 2 times | Published

involving the children of the parties. See section 61.13, Florida Statutes. John also contends that Jane

Great Bay Distributors v. Everett

513 So. 2d 187, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2222

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 1987 | Docket: 1295039

Cited 2 times | Published

2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 61.13(f), which approves the award of compensation benefits

Safferstone v. Safferstone

501 So. 2d 165, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 376

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1987 | Docket: 1527733

Cited 2 times | Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the children. § 61.13(2)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). The trial court may

Gonzalez v. Gonzalez

446 So. 2d 237

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1984 | Docket: 1779813

Cited 2 times | Published

the care, custody and maintenance of a child, § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1981); see generally, Whiteley v.

Morgan v. Morgan

429 So. 2d 432

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1983 | Docket: 1667668

Cited 2 times | Published

broad powers to insure enforcement of its orders, § 61.13(1), Florida Statutes, permits modification of an

Ruyle v. Murphy

422 So. 2d 318

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1982 | Docket: 1739936

Cited 2 times | Published

intervene and petition for modification of custody. Section 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979) indicates that the

Wiggins v. Wiggins

411 So. 2d 263

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 1982 | Docket: 1326958

Cited 2 times | Published

been ignored. This is contrary to the law. Section 61.13(2) provides that "the father of the child shall

Mills v. Phillips

407 So. 2d 302, 1 Educ. L. Rep. 1391

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1981 | Docket: 467493

Cited 2 times | Published

necessary for the best interests of the child. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1979). This ruling does not

Ferrell v. Ruege

397 So. 2d 723

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1981 | Docket: 1357488

Cited 2 times | Published

grandparent can be established only pursuant to Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).[1] We are mindful

Ferrell v. Ruege

397 So. 2d 723

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1981 | Docket: 1357488

Cited 2 times | Published

grandparent can be established only pursuant to Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).[1] We are mindful

Putnal v. Putnal

392 So. 2d 613

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 1981 | Docket: 1268173

Cited 2 times | Published

visitation by the grandparents. (emphasis added). § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). (1) "Contestant" means

Fisher v. Fisher

390 So. 2d 142

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1980 | Docket: 1349737

Cited 2 times | Published

where she and they now reside. This was error. § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978).[2] The Order, insofar

Simon v. Simon

319 So. 2d 46

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 1975 | Docket: 1436159

Cited 2 times | Published

engage in any type of dangerous occupation. Section 61.13(3), Fla. Stat., F.S.A., provides that in any

Zilbert v. Zilbert

287 So. 2d 100

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1973 | Docket: 1170496

Cited 2 times | Published

allowed are subject to review under Fla. Stat. § 61.13 and § 61.14, F.S.A. We have examined the other

RAYNESSA PARRIS v. IN THE MATTER OF: SHANTA BUTLER

264 So. 3d 1089

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2019 | Docket: 14542364

Cited 1 times | Published

most of the statutory best-interest factors, see § 61.13(3), the court ordered that it was in the best

ADAM RICHARD CLARKE v. KINSLEY ELIZABETH STOFFT

263 So. 3d 84

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2019 | Docket: 8485208

Cited 1 times | Published

responsibility to comply with section 61.13(2)(b)2.a. [now codified as section 61.13(c)2.a.], Florida Statutes

Oldham v. Greene

263 So. 3d 807

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 64703347

Cited 1 times | Published

We also disagree with Mother's argument that section 61.13, Florida Statutes, provides a third, independent

RACHEL A. CHALMERS v. JOSEPH A. CHALMERS

259 So. 3d 878

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 2018 | Docket: 8338757

Cited 1 times | Published

determine the best interests of the child under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2017), and to determine

Lane v. Lane

254 So. 3d 570

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2018 | Docket: 7406893

Cited 1 times | Published

660 So. 2d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“Section 61.13 commands parents to confer on all major decisions

Betty Caitlin Nicole Smith v. Zachary Taylor Daniel

246 So. 3d 1279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2018 | Docket: 7024346

Cited 1 times | Published

previously noted, is a factor to be considered under section 61.13(3)(m), the final order is otherwise devoid of

JENNIFER DAVIS v. COURTNEY DAVIS

245 So. 3d 810

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2018 | Docket: 6716315

Cited 1 times | Published

findings as to the children’s best interest. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2016), provides that the

Bajcar v. Bajcar

247 So. 3d 613

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2018 | Docket: 6716299

Cited 1 times | Published

responsibility.” See Ch. 2008-61, s. 8, Laws of Fla; § 61.13(3),(5), Fla. Stat. (2017). However, our references

Zarudny v. Zarudny

241 So. 3d 258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2018 | Docket: 6348071

Cited 1 times | Published

9 the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3)(a)-(t), Florida Statutes (2017). We disagree

Bruce v. Bruce - corrected 2/5/18

243 So. 3d 461

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 2018 | Docket: 6300782

Cited 1 times | Published

without explaining its reasoning. Section 61.13(2)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2015), requires a

Rachel D. Dukes, f/k/a Rachel D. Griffin, Former Wife v. Timothy R. Griffin, Former Husband

230 So. 3d 155

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2017 | Docket: 6182886

Cited 1 times | Published

reestablish majority time-sharing for the child. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, provides a way for parents

Gonzalez v. Hewitt

211 So. 3d 1147, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3195

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2017 | Docket: 60262472

Cited 1 times | Published

the best interest of the child pursuant to section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2016), and by failing

Yasar Korkmaz v. Anastasia Korkmaz

200 So. 3d 263, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14745

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 2016 | Docket: 4468658

Cited 1 times | Published

modification is in the best interests of the child.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Jannotta

Gross v. Zimmerman

197 So. 3d 1248, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12070, 2016 WL 4205345

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2016 | Docket: 60256186

Cited 1 times | Published

assets which may be suitable for that purpose.” § 61.13(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). “As the statute itself

Desmond D. Dillion v. Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program

189 So. 3d 353, 2016 WL 1688579, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6426

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2016 | Docket: 3062297

Cited 1 times | Published

engage in frequent and continuing time-sharing. § 61.13(2)(c)l., Fla. Stat. (2015). The Department erred

Glenn Robert Broga v. Linda Marie Broga

166 So. 3d 183

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2015 | Docket: 2650255

Cited 1 times | Published

as each child reaches the age of majority. Section 61.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2012), only requires

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

173 So. 3d 19

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2015 | Docket: 60294087

Cited 1 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Wade v. Wade

159 So. 3d 1006, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4206, 2015 WL 1313251

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 2015 | Docket: 2644394

Cited 1 times | Published

court “modified” the FCJ within the meaning of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2014), is a de novo review

Henderson v. Henderson

162 So. 3d 203, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1556, 2015 WL 477876

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 2015 | Docket: 60247450

Cited 1 times | Published

specifically addressed each factor contained in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and determined that the

Slater v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest

26 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 2014 WL 2700835, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80868

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2014 | Docket: 64295586

Cited 1 times | Published

F.Supp.2d 1315, 1316 (N.D.Fla.2001); 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(d) (“no provision of the said documents shall be

Griffith v. Griffith

133 So. 3d 1184, 2014 WL 895611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2014 | Docket: 60238717

Cited 1 times | Published

best interests of the children pursuant to section 61.13(8), Florida Statutes (2012). We must agree.

Hunter v. Booker

133 So. 3d 623, 2014 WL 895188, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3397

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2014 | Docket: 60238848

Cited 1 times | Published

basis” provided in chapter 61, Florida Statutes. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, provides that, when creating

deLabry v. Sales

134 So. 3d 1110, 2014 WL 444040, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1453

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2014 | Docket: 60239035

Cited 1 times | Published

circumstances had occurred, warranting modification. See § 61.13(l)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2012) (“The court initially

In re Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

122 So. 3d 320, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 617, 2013 WL 4734603, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1892

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 2013 | Docket: 60234662

Cited 1 times | Published

either party may subsequently apply, pursuant to section 61.13(l)(d)3, Florida Statutes, to require payment

Shiba v. Gabay

120 So. 3d 80, 2013 WL 4006132, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12363

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2013 | Docket: 60234270

Cited 1 times | Published

he had considered the factors contained in section 61.13, as well as the relocation statute, section

Jeffers v. McLeary

118 So. 3d 287, 2013 WL 3924078, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11994

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2013 | Docket: 60233169

Cited 1 times | Published

756 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2011) (stating that when establishing

Waybright v. Johnson-Smith

115 So. 3d 445, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9928, 2013 WL 3155856

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2013 | Docket: 60232195

Cited 1 times | Published

probative matters in a child custody case. See § 61.13(3)(m), Fla. Stat. (2012). In establishing residential

Harris v. Harris

114 So. 3d 1095, 2013 WL 2501986, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9269, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2013 | Docket: 60231747

Cited 1 times | Published

marriage is affirmed in all other respects. Section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), requires the

Ashby v. Murray

113 So. 3d 951, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2419, 2013 WL 557180

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2013 | Docket: 60231665

Cited 1 times | Published

for Violation of Rule 1.610; and Violation of F.S. 61.13, and Mother's Sworn Ex Parte Motion for Entry

Campbell v. Campbell

100 So. 3d 763, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19283, 2012 WL 5415083

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2012 | Docket: 60225948

Cited 1 times | Published

modification is in the best interests of the child.” See § 61.13(4)(c)6„ Fla. Stat. (2011); Ginnell v. Pacetti,

Edgar v. Firuta

100 So. 3d 255, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19146, 2012 WL 5416432

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2012 | Docket: 60225747

Cited 1 times | Published

without addressing the requirements set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2011). It is undisputed in

Sabatini v. Wigh

98 So. 3d 244, 2012 WL 4512764, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16515

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2012 | Docket: 60312253

Cited 1 times | Published

the best interests of the child. See generally § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (requiring the court to determine

Crittenden v. Davis

89 So. 3d 1098, 2012 WL 2120996, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9574

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2012 | Docket: 60308550

Cited 1 times | Published

substantial change in circumstances occurred. See § 61.13(2)(c), (3), Fla. Stat. (2010). The father argues

Hunter v. Hunter

65 So. 3d 1213, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12143, 2011 WL 3303481

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2011 | Docket: 2361103

Cited 1 times | Published

failure to comply with the requirements of section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), also mandates

Orta v. Suarez

66 So. 3d 988, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10161, 2011 WL 2555427

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2011 | Docket: 2363186

Cited 1 times | Published

concurrent request for a "parenting plan" under section 61.13(3) of the Florida Statutes. In its order, the

Mudafort v. Lee

62 So. 3d 1196, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8404, 2011 WL 2200782

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 8, 2011 | Docket: 2362788

Cited 1 times | Published

importantly, in 2009 the Legislature revised section 61.13(2)(c)(1), to state, in part, "There is no presumption

Doran v. Doran

49 So. 3d 1290, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20231, 2010 WL 5383213

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 2010 | Docket: 1375158

Cited 1 times | Published

that it is in the best interests of the child." § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). Evidence of child abuse

Crombie v. Williams

51 So. 3d 559, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19433, 2010 WL 5175503

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2010 | Docket: 2408155

Cited 1 times | Published

court must consider the factors outlined in section 61.13(2)(d)”); Buonavolonta v. Buonavolonta, 846 So

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

59 So. 3d 792, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 734, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 2116, 2010 WL 5129227

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 2010 | Docket: 60299743

Cited 1 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Corey v. Corey

48 So. 3d 740, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 602, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1778, 2010 WL 4117108

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 2010 | Docket: 2576776

Cited 1 times | Published

section 61.121 and substantial revision to section 61.13, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2008

GINNELL v. Pacetti

31 So. 3d 217, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2547, 2010 WL 711785

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2010 | Docket: 1647972

Cited 1 times | Published

transportation costs and a doctor's fees. See § 61.13(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008); Robinson-Wilson v. Wilson

Schmachtenberg v. Schmachtenberg

34 So. 3d 28, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2098, 2010 WL 624200

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2010 | Docket: 1662731

Cited 1 times | Published

all of those costs on his former wife. Under section 61.13(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes, support *34 obligations

Mahmood v. Mahmood

15 So. 3d 1, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 572, 2009 WL 187807

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 2009 | Docket: 1660303

Cited 1 times | Published

action relating to those issues has been brought." § 61.13(3)(m), Fla. Stat. (2008). If the court determines

Lombard v. Lombard

997 So. 2d 1188, 2008 WL 5263637

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 2008 | Docket: 1379811

Cited 1 times | Published

term applies only to the noncustodial parent. See § 61.13(4)(a), Fla. Stat (2006) ("when a noncustodial parent

In Re BTG

993 So. 2d 1140, 2008 WL 4756399

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2008 | Docket: 1516171

Cited 1 times | Published

2d 401, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (construing section 61.13(2)(d), the prior version of the current parental

Migliori v. Migliori

983 So. 2d 670, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 7807, 2008 WL 2219780

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2008 | Docket: 64854967

Cited 1 times | Published

GRIFFIN, MONACO and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . Under Section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), venue was clearly

Sun Ray Village Owners Ass'n v. Old Dominion Insurance

546 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24995, 2008 WL 846123

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2008 | Docket: 2432069

Cited 1 times | Published

government acting as the guarantor and reinsurer. See § 61.13(f); § 62.23(d); see also Gowland v. Aetna, 143

Sun Ray Village Owners Ass'n v. Old Dominion Insurance

546 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24995, 2008 WL 846123

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2008 | Docket: 2432069

Cited 1 times | Published

government acting as the guarantor and reinsurer. See § 61.13(f); § 62.23(d); see also Gowland v. Aetna, 143

Bevil v. Carson

966 So. 2d 1007, 2007 WL 2962590

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2007 | Docket: 1269967

Cited 1 times | Published

without considering the statutory criteria of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2006). Although Bevil

Watt v. Watt

966 So. 2d 455, 2007 WL 2847884

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2007 | Docket: 1678774

Cited 1 times | Published

over specific aspects of the child's welfare. § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla. Stat. If the parties reach an impasse

Tarter v. Tarter

960 So. 2d 862, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1694

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2007 | Docket: 843026

Cited 1 times | Published

welfare and interest of the child as required by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2006). See Burckle v.

Manyari v. Manyari

958 So. 2d 512, 2007 WL 1541976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2007 | Docket: 373300

Cited 1 times | Published

child based upon its findings made pursuant to Section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005). See e.g., Segarra

Hughes v. Hughes

955 So. 2d 1201, 2007 WL 1319241

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 2007 | Docket: 2572781

Cited 1 times | Published

conclusion that six of the factors set out in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2001), favor the former

Edrington v. Edrington

945 So. 2d 608, 2006 WL 3733231

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2006 | Docket: 1400493

Cited 1 times | Published

Hamilton, 922 So.2d 263, 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, sets forth a "best interests"

Lancaster v. Briley

932 So. 2d 549, 2006 WL 1735157

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2006 | Docket: 1285578

Cited 1 times | Published

residential parent may relocate with a child, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), requires the

Hamilton v. Hamilton

922 So. 2d 263, 2006 WL 197153

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 2006 | Docket: 1282636

Cited 1 times | Published

circuit court analyzed the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2003). In its final judgment

Hancock v. Hancock

915 So. 2d 1277, 2005 WL 3478398

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2005 | Docket: 1690735

Cited 1 times | Published

decisions concerning the minor child, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Florida Statutes (2004). In the original

In Re Approval of Indigent Status Forms

910 So. 2d 194, 2005 WL 1530359

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 2005 | Docket: 1744614

Cited 1 times | Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Some circuits may require

Jensen v. Jensen

904 So. 2d 635, 2005 WL 1459131

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2005 | Docket: 1365014

Cited 1 times | Published

necessary before relocation could be granted. See § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2004). The parties' Marital

Sheridan v. Sheridan

899 So. 2d 469, 2005 WL 780373

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2005 | Docket: 1705618

Cited 1 times | Published

*471 phone contact is likely to continue." See § 61.13(4)(c)(5), Fla. Stat. (2003). Because the evidence

Leng-Gross v. Gross

898 So. 2d 241, 2005 WL 602398

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2005 | Docket: 1448765

Cited 1 times | Published

a consideration of the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2000), as if the trial

Van Asten v. Costa

874 So. 2d 1244, 2004 WL 1257682

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2004 | Docket: 1473870

Cited 1 times | Published

The trial court considered each factor under section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2002), and there is

Collins v. Collins

873 So. 2d 1261, 2004 WL 1176248

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 2004 | Docket: 1732878

Cited 1 times | Published

addressing in the judgment a factor listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2002), pertaining to domestic

AA v. Department of Children and Families

852 So. 2d 318, 2003 WL 21750081

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 2003 | Docket: 1711020

Cited 1 times | Published

require a comparison between the parents. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). The legislature's intent

Young v. Hector

833 So. 2d 793, 2002 WL 1285294

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2002 | Docket: 1675548

Cited 1 times | Published

boarding school is not a "relocation" under section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), but simply an

Rodgers v. Diederichsen

820 So. 2d 362, 2002 WL 971346

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 2002 | Docket: 1715437

Cited 1 times | Published

obligation unless ordered to be separately paid). Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), directs the

Bacardi v. Bacardi

727 So. 2d 1137, 1999 WL 141827

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1999 | Docket: 1438433

Cited 1 times | Published

her live-in boyfriend. He based his motion on section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). Kimberly responded

S.G. v. C.S.G.

726 So. 2d 806, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 421

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 1999 | Docket: 64786317

Cited 1 times | Published

standard in making a custody decision under section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1995), as between a natural

Cummings v. Cummings

723 So. 2d 898, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16368, 1998 WL 903785

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1998 | Docket: 64785289

Cited 1 times | Published

break, pursuant to section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). Patently, section 61.13(4)(c) does not require

Card v. Card

706 So. 2d 409, 1998 WL 94140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1998 | Docket: 251877

Cited 1 times | Published

findings of fact the statutory factors set out at section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995). The judge's consideration

Carter v. Howey

707 So. 2d 906, 1998 WL 95333

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1998 | Docket: 1259939

Cited 1 times | Published

requirement that he consider the factors set forth in section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes (1995). We agree that

Ayyash v. Ayyash

700 So. 2d 752, 1997 WL 627536

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 1997 | Docket: 1373265

Cited 1 times | Published

a temporary *753 order entered pursuant to section 61.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which had granted custody

Davidian v. Kessler

685 So. 2d 13, 1996 WL 655763

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1996 | Docket: 1415210

Cited 1 times | Published

the court denied the motion to transfer. In section 61.13(2)(b)1-2, it is provided: It is the public policy

Hagins v. Hagins

678 So. 2d 479, 1996 WL 465029

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 1996 | Docket: 1470516

Cited 1 times | Published

custody is in the child's best interest. See section 61.13(1)(c)2, Florida Statutes. Mize, through both

Anderson v. Garcia

673 So. 2d 111, 1996 WL 228583

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1996 | Docket: 1671311

Cited 1 times | Published

grandparent-Appellants' motion to intervene, filed under section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993), and remand for

Adamson v. Chavis

672 So. 2d 624, 1996 WL 199699

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 1996 | Docket: 1763834

Cited 1 times | Published

Wattles, 631 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Section 61.13(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1994), provides that

Adamson v. Chavis

672 So. 2d 624, 1996 WL 199699

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 1996 | Docket: 1763834

Cited 1 times | Published

Wattles, 631 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Section 61.13(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1994), provides that

Butler v. Butler

622 So. 2d 73, 1993 WL 274006

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1993 | Docket: 1529006

Cited 1 times | Published

insurance or health costs not covered by insurance. Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), requires that

Wagler v. Wagler

593 So. 2d 602, 1992 WL 25844

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1992 | Docket: 1508927

Cited 1 times | Published

Stamm, 489 So.2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1989), lists the factors

Cimitier v. Cimitier

579 So. 2d 142, 1991 WL 40064

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1991 | Docket: 1432155

Cited 1 times | Published

Bennett, 561 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1990). To this end, section 61.13(1), Florida Statutes (1989) states: To the extent

Chiafair v. Chiafair

552 So. 2d 248, 1989 WL 132546

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 1989 | Docket: 1201089

Cited 1 times | Published

environment contemplated by the provisions of Section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Therefore, we reverse the

Iannone v. Iannone

542 So. 2d 487, 1989 WL 48099

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 1989 | Docket: 468802

Cited 1 times | Published

869 (Fla. 1969). NOTES [1] § 61.13(2)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (1985). [2] § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla. Stat. (1985)

In Interest of RCE

535 So. 2d 673, 1988 WL 138509

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1988 | Docket: 1711116

Cited 1 times | Published

rights to maternal grandparents pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)2 c and section 752.01(1)(b), Florida Statutes

Solly v. Solly

384 So. 2d 208

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 1980 | Docket: 1678715

Cited 1 times | Published

awarding custody to a third party. While Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A., provides for equal consideration of

Marshall v. Marshall

375 So. 2d 1082

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 1979 | Docket: 1352957

Cited 1 times | Published

award of custody to the mother. Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b) provides: "Upon considering all relevant

In Re Adoption of KAM

367 So. 2d 744, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 23, 1979 | Docket: 2555469

Cited 1 times | Published

, concur. NOTES [1] Now incorporated into Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.). [2] Now

Corvison v. Corvison

362 So. 2d 323

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 1978 | Docket: 2574954

Cited 1 times | Published

chancellor constituted an abuse of discretion. While Section 61.13(2), Florida Statutes (1977) provides for equal

Lindsay Wallace v. Andrew Wallace

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2025 | Docket: 70890935

Published

replete with inconsistencies and errors. Section 61.13(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes (2024), requires a

Natascha Aabbott v. Israel Kligman

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2025 | Docket: 70892217

Published

trial court did not abuse its discretion. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (“The court shall determine

Marchione v. Marchione

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 2025 | Docket: 70690158

Published

unequivocally request a continuance if needed.”); § 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2023) (“[T]here is a rebuttable

Jordan Keck v. Matthew Fortier

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2025 | Docket: 70649183

Published

parenting plan is a time- sharing schedule. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2024). “Except when a time-sharing

Andre P. Malek v. Marie Malek

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2025 | Docket: 70630895

Published

order addressing the factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes, and focused on the best interest

Germania Paola Naranjo Saenz v. Jose Antonio Diaz

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2025 | Docket: 70630887

Published

correctness, we are compelled to affirm. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (“A determination of parental responsibility

Holly Squires v. Jared Squires

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2025 | Docket: 70590494

Published

creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule.” § 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2024). Likewise, written findings

Diana De Los Angeles Salazar v. Andre Ramon Blanco

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2025 | Docket: 70454064

Published

with the statutory requirements set out in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2024). The Mother

Amanda Lee Lawler v. Brian Patrick Lawler

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2025 | Docket: 70454066

Published

findings in regards to the statutory factors of section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes). On appeal,

Parminne Pitamber v. Lakeram Shivbaran

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2025 | Docket: 70328219

Published

record. See § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Chalmers v. Chalmers

Lindsey Rachelle Healy v. Joseph James Healy

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2025 | Docket: 69929828

Published

This includes decisions regarding education. See § 61.13(2)(c)4., Fla. Stat. (2024) (recognizing, albeit

Kelly Lett v. Jeremy Lett

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2025 | Docket: 69843650

Published

because her argument in this regard overlooks section 61.13(4)(c)2. Section 61.16(1) broadly allows

Christopher Nicholas v. Carol Nicholas

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2025 | Docket: 69755646

Published

provision ordering Wife to continue doing so. Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2022), mandates that

Sergio Alvarez v. Mariela Stochetti

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2025 | Docket: 69728621

Published

support such an award. We agree. Section 61.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides, “To the extent

Nadia Kiswani v. Saleem Hafza

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2025 | Docket: 69640656

Published

fails to implement a timesharing schedule. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, requires that the parenting

Miguel Gonzalez v. Sabrina Henry

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 2025 | Docket: 69546641

Published

GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Unless otherwise

Alan Oria v. Shanifer Velastegui

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2024 | Docket: 69477361

Published

material change in circumstances.1 1 Section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes provides in relevant

Alfredo Francisco Gonzalez v. Caridad Pilar Calles

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2024 | Docket: 69455328

Published

Modification of Child Support We begin with section 61.13(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2024), which provides:

Colvin Cenac v. Franckline Francois

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 2024 | Docket: 69301660

Published

permitted the lower court to properly evaluate the section 61.13(3)(a)-(t) factors when it made its parental

Allison Giacomaro v. Jonathan Brossia

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 2024 | Docket: 69266248

Published

findings regarding the statutory factors in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2023). The court made

Natalie Radko v. Shahar Levi

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 2024 | Docket: 69127383

Published

98 So. 3d 84, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting § 61.13(3) Fla. Stat. (2010)). We have held that it is

Campbell v. Jara

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2024 | Docket: 68881993

Published

stipulated to other factors considered pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes, encompassed in the final

Jamie Hershberger v.Stash Hershberger

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2024 | Docket: 68848309

Published

in modification proceeding). Additionally, section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2022), states, “[[t]he

Michele Mendez v. Adrian Mendez and Charles A. Lowe, III

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2024 | Docket: 68924699

Published

any written findings of fact as mandated by section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2023), with respect to the

Mattingly, Mattingly v. Hatfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2024 | Docket: 68290533

Published

is deemed to be in the child’s best interest.” § 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (2004). But over time, as

WHITACRE v. RAGAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2024 | Docket: 68234666

Published

interests of the children.1 We agree and reverse. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2023) (requiring that the court

Keith Malley v. Cortney Malley

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2024 | Docket: 68869500

Published

52 So. 3d 790, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)). Section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), states: “The

Charles Edward Lane v. Samaria R. Fuller

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2024 | Docket: 68313532

Published

modification have a much higher threshold. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022).

Katia Alvares-Watters v. Joseph Watters

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 2024 | Docket: 68029161

Published

court stated it evaluated all the factors under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2022), but noted that

Harrell v. Friend

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 2024 | Docket: 68511404

Published

other individuals. This appeal follows. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, describes the showing

YU YAN CHAN v. WILLIAM KEVIN ADDISON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2024 | Docket: 68452839

Published

Plan failed to address all the requirements of section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes, because it failed

Rocio Merlihan v. Daniel McWilliam Skinner, Jr.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 2024 | Docket: 68138180

Published

the GAL’s 48-hour waiver provision because section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2020), does not require

Haslauer v. Haslauer

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2024 | Docket: 68313502

Published

distribution of the marital assets and liabilities”); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (“For purposes of establishing or

Mattingly, Mattingly v. Hatfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2024 | Docket: 68290533

Published

is deemed to be in the child’s best interest.” § 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (2004). But over time, as

Tammy R. Ward v. Joshua K. Waters

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2024 | Docket: 68132274

Published

4 Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes . . . provides that the

Spann v. Payne, S.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2023 | Docket: 68084178

Published

issue was not properly before the court. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, governs the procedures for

Mitchell v. Ahmed

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2023 | Docket: 68084180

Published

substantial and material change in circumstances. § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. The parties agreed the father’s

Michelle Saenz v. Roberto Sanchez

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2023 | Docket: 68008439

Published

So. 3d 1265, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); see also § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022); Paskiewicz v. Paskiewicz

ANA CAROLINA QUICENO v. OMAR BEDIER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2023 | Docket: 67718516

Published

ANALYSIS Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2023), sets forth a nonexclusive

JOSE ANDRES RAFFO v. MONICA M. MENENDEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2023 | Docket: 67657794

Published

LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (providing that a trial court

JOSE ANDRES RAFFO v. MONICA M. MENENDEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2023 | Docket: 67657794

Published

LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (providing that a trial court

JESSICA RUSSELL n/k/a JESSICA WILLIAMS v. JOEL ARONOWICZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2023 | Docket: 67600932

Published

and unanticipated change of circumstances.” § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). To modify parental

ADAM LEE TUCKER vs LAUREN KA-WEI NG TUCKER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2023 | Docket: 67765019

Published

best interest of the child factors listed in section 61.13(3)(a)-(t), Florida Statutes, the trial court

YVES BRUTUS vs DANISE BRUTUS GILES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2023 | Docket: 67718528

Published

created by the trial court fails to satisfy section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2020). In particular

THEODORE MOONINGHAM vs STEPHANIE MOONINGHAM

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2023 | Docket: 66818429

Published

detriment to the child, in accordance with section 61.13(2)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2022). He further

ZACHARY RANKIN v. BLAINE LOUNSBURY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2023 | Docket: 67012396

Published

864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139

HECTOR J. TORRES RIOS v. REBECA ARIAS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2023 | Docket: 66833846

Published

1186, 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Second, section 61.13(2)(b)3.a., Florida Statutes (2022), provides

JACQUELINE VARNER vs BRIAN VARNER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2023 | Docket: 67173921

Published

As for the award of make-up timesharing, section 61.13 instructs the trial court to award a parent

DANIELA SOUTO COE v. REINIER NICOLAAS RAUTENBERG

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2023 | Docket: 66814487

Published

longer entitled to receive support. We agree. See § 61.13(1)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2022) (“All child support

TERRI FOSTER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF CAYMAN FOSTER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2023 | Docket: 66698534

Published

visitation. The First District found that under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, a trial court was required

Charles L. Spann, father v. Shelli D. Payne, mother In Re: A.J.S., a minor child

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2022 | Docket: 65365639

Published

though it was not explicit in its order. Section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), states:

LYNETTE LOGREIRA v. EFRAIN LOGREIRA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2022 | Docket: 65363934

Published

So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat. (2022); § 61.503(2), Fla. Stat.

ELEIDY MIEDES v. STEVE B. IDESES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2022 | Docket: 64916766

Published

properly analyzed the statutory factors of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. See Sordo v. Camblin

GREGORY ROBERTS v. ANYZEILA DIAZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 2022 | Docket: 63654651

Published

required to modify a timesharing schedule. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2021). However, because there

MARK MALKIN AND STEVEN M. WISE, etc. v. FABIANA CORREA PLA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2022 | Docket: 63572760

Published

So. 3d 589, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (noting section 61.13, Florida Statutes, applies only to parents’

CRYSTAL BROOK HERNANDEZ v. MARK ANTHONY MENDOZA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2022 | Docket: 63401321

Published

in failing to include a statutory provision. Section 61.13(2)(b)3.a., Florida Statutes (2021), states that

YVES MOQUIN v. SYLVIE BERGERON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 2022 | Docket: 63301696

Published

findings as to the parties’ then-minor child under section 61.13. We agree with Former Husband that the trial

KENZIE SADLAK v. FRANK TRUJILLO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 2022 | Docket: 63232258

Published

court at the time it entered final judgment. See § 61.13(1)(a)1.b. (requiring that child support orders

MOISES FIGUEROA vs STACEY KOSSIVER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2022 | Docket: 63288808

Published

addressed each non-exclusive factor listed in section 61.13(3)(a)–(t), Florida Statutes (2021), that must

BARRY SCHNEER v. ALICE LLAURADO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2022 | Docket: 63162688

Published

are contravened by any evidence of record. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. As we lack a transcript, we

RALPH J. HERNANDEZ v. LISA ANN HERNANDEZ a/k/a LISA ANN HERNANDEZ-MCPAIL

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2022 | Docket: 63144891

Published

parenting and time-sharing statute codified in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2019), to increase the

HEATHER SEITH v. RICHARD SEITH

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2022 | Docket: 63127638

Published

899 So. 2d 357, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). Section 61.13(3)–(6), Florida Statutes (2020), govern the

ALEXANDER CHARLES DANIELLO v. KRISTY MARIE SETTLE

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2022 | Docket: 63127646

Published

G.C., 316 So. 3d 287, 288 (Fla. 2021) (quoting § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat.). Our supreme court has also explained

WALLACE HODGE, JR. v. BRITTANY BABCOCK

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2022 | Docket: 63008205

Published

paternity, finding that the Mother violated section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes when she removed the

MARIA LUISA MASSA CISNEROS v. CARLOS A. GUINAND

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2021 | Docket: 61618226

Published

Bridges and ran afoul of the requirements of section 61.13(2)(c)2., 2 The children began attending

DOMINIQUE DAVID LOUIS v. DANYIEL LOUIS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2021 | Docket: 60041147

Published

ultimate decision-making authority. We agree. Section 61.13(2)(c)2.a., Florida Statutes (2019), requires

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms – 12.970(a)-(f)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2021 | Docket: 59974791

Published

subsequently apply, pursuant to section 61.13(1)(d)(3), Florida Statutes, to require

C.N. v. I.G.C.

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2021 | Docket: 59864607

Published

plan” is conferred by section 61.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2020). Section 61.13(2)(b) sets out minimum

JAIME ANDRES VILLALBA v. MICHELLE FRANCHESCA VILLALBA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2021 | Docket: 59860111

Published

modification is in the best interests of the child.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2020). “Stated differently, a movant

FALLON JOHNSON v. JACOREY JOHNSON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2021 | Docket: 59759002

Published

the trial court made findings pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2019), regarding factors

JESUS GARCIA v. JULIETTE ESPINOSA-GARCIA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 6, 2021 | Docket: 29084907

Published

expectation of graduation before the age of nineteen. § 61.13(1)(a)(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019).

LISA KIM KARKHOFF v. THOMAS ANTHONY ROBILOTTA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2020 | Docket: 18726932

Published

conflict with any other provisions of the order. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2019) (stating that a trial

BARBARA JANANN FINE v. CLIFFORD TRAVIS FINE

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 2020 | Docket: 18690544

Published

insurance, as required by section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019). Section 61.13(1)(b) provides, in

CHAD MARTIN TAVARES v. PATRICE SHANTE ENOCH

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2020 | Docket: 17415848

Published

of each of the twenty factors enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2018). Our review has

MARY L. CHEVALIER v. TYLER J. EMMERSON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2020 | Docket: 17350907

Published

modification is in the best interests of the child.” § 61.13(4)(c)6., Fla. Stat. (2019). For example, in Ginnell

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms – 12.948(a)-(e)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2020 | Docket: 17334377

Published

party may subsequently apply, pursuant to section 61.13(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes, to require payments

BENJAMIN DEWITT FRYE v. CHRISTINA MARIE CUOMO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 2020 | Docket: 17218386

Published

citations and quotation marks omitted); see also § 61.13(3)(a)–(t), Fla. Stat. (2018). Here, given Former

RAHUL SCUDDER v. FREEDA MARY SCUDDER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 6, 2020 | Docket: 17131148

Published

children; (6) failing to address all section 61.13 factors; (7) allocating all travel expenses

ANDREW BOUKZAM v. JOSSI JUGO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2020 | Docket: 16986314

Published

3 B. Section 61.13 and Branscomb Section 61.13(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes,

HEATHER RAMIREZ v. ANTHONY RAMIREZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2020 | Docket: 16986310

Published

best interests of the children, as required by section 61.13, Florida Statutes. As to the remaining issues

ANDREW SOCOL v. KELLI SOCOL

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2020 | Docket: 16925830

Published

Responsibility Would be Detrimental to the Child Section 61.13(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes (2018), states, in

In re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms – 12.948(a)-(e)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2019 | Docket: 17334377

Published

may subsequently apply, pursuant to section 61.13(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes, to require payments

BENJAMIN A. MUSGRAVE v. LYNN M. MUSGRAVE

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 2019 | Docket: 16523190

Published

creating an appropriate parenting plan under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2018), with regard to the

TODD KOZEL v. ASHLEY D. KOZEL

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 2019 | Docket: 16523187

Published

jurisdiction to modify a child support award under section 61.13, Florida Statutes); Mouton v. Mouton, 590 So

PEDRO SUAREZ v. CANDICE MURPHY SUAREZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2019 | Docket: 16460462

Published

200 So. 3d 263, 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (quoting § 61.13 (3), Fla. Stat.). A court cannot modify a timesharing

T. D. v. K. F.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 2019 | Docket: 16445589

Published

against the best interests of the child, see § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018) (providing that the best

Melissa Jean Thomas v. Henrithson Joseph

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2019 | Docket: 16211728

Published

circumstances has been shown” but did not elaborate. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). The court also found

DANA CAPPOLA v. PAUL CAPPOLA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2019 | Docket: 16121874

Published

court “considered the relevant factors in [section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2018)] and the evidence

Renee Marie Hollonbeck n/k/a Renee Marie Turley former wife v. Sean Andrew Hollonbeck, former husband

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2019 | Docket: 16049251

Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the child.” § 61.13(2)(c)2., Fla. Stat. Therefore, the trial court

WILLIAM BECK v. CAROL HOWARD

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 2019 | Docket: 16037352

Published

child support pursuant to the requirements of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2015). See Aranda v. Padilla

CHRISTY DALE SPRINGER v. NICOLE ANN SPRINGER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 2019 | Docket: 15940622

Published

responsibility and time-sharing pursuant to section 61.13(2)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (2017).1 However

ANNA HOLLIS v. DAVID HOLLIS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 19, 2019 | Docket: 15798572

Published

" Griffith, 133 So. 3d at 1186 (quoting § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2012)). The burden on the moving

Hull v. Hull

273 So. 3d 1135

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2019 | Docket: 64717533

Published

best interest of the child or as set forth in [section] 61.13," which *1137itself separately lists twenty

STACEY WALKER v. KRISTI WALKER

274 So. 3d 1156

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2019 | Docket: 15704310

Published

considered the timesharing factors set forth in section 61.13. In Martinez, this court held

E.V. v. D.M.V.H.

273 So. 3d 1132

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2019 | Docket: 64717528

Published

insufficient because it does not comply with section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), in five ways:

E. v. v. D. M. v. H.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2019 | Docket: 15688820

Published

insufficient because it does not comply with section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), in five ways:

E.V. v. D.M.V.H.

273 So. 3d 1132

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2019 | Docket: 64717529

Published

insufficient because it does not comply with section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), in five ways:

RACQUEL SCHOT v. KEVIN SCHOT

273 So. 3d 48

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2019 | Docket: 15688831

Published

modification is in the “best interests of the child.” § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). The party seeking modification

Johnson v. Johnson

268 So. 3d 203

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2019 | Docket: 64710864

Published

calculating the ongoing child support award. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2014), requires that every

Johnson v. Johnson

268 So. 3d 203

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2019 | Docket: 64710865

Published

calculating the ongoing child support award. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2014), requires that every

Jennifer McLendon v. Richard D'Amico

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2019 | Docket: 14882793

Published

Chalker, 228 So. 3d 697, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, sets out factors for consideration

Paulette v. Rosella

267 So. 3d 571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2019 | Docket: 64709251

Published

provided for in the agreement or order. Second, section 61.13(1)(a)2. provides in pertinent part that: The

Paulette v. Rosella

267 So. 3d 571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2019 | Docket: 64709250

Published

provided for in the agreement or order. Second, section 61.13(1)(a)2. provides in pertinent part that: The

JEFFREY L. LIGHTSEY v. ANGELICA M. DAVIS

267 So. 3d 12

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2019 | Docket: 14618625

Published

court concluded that based on the factors of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2018), the father had not

JEFFREY L. LIGHTSEY v. ANGELICA M. DAVIS

267 So. 3d 12

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2019 | Docket: 14618625

Published

court concluded that based on the factors of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2018), the father had not

Allende v. Veloz

273 So. 3d 142

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 2019 | Docket: 14560225

Published

shared parental responsibility pursuant to section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes; sets forth a time-sharing

Domenick Grasso v. Kara S. Grasso

267 So. 3d 1050

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2019 | Docket: 14556846

Published

protect an award of child support.” Fla. Stat. § 61.13(1)(c) (2017). A trial court, however, may not do

Mary Grace Vinson v. Tommy Junior Vinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 2019 | Docket: 8480725

Published

best interests of the child as enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the factors

Philip P. Oldham v. Hillary E. Greene

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 8455141

Published

We also disagree with Mother’s argument that section 61.13, Florida Statutes, provides a third, independent

CAROL PUHL n/k/a CAROL MORLEY v. THOMAS PUHL

260 So. 3d 323

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 2018 | Docket: 8338766

Published

182 So. 3d 837, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2014)). The burden to establish

SARAH LYNDEN SAPONARA v. ERNEST ADRIAN CALEB SAPONARA

261 So. 3d 570

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2018 | Docket: 8221307

Published

modification based on changed circumstances under section 61.13(3) and relocation under section 61.13001 of

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O KATHRYN E. SALYER v. KEVIN J. VOBROUCEK

259 So. 3d 228

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2018 | Docket: 8158547

Published

Cunningham, 630 So. 2d at 181). Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2017), both recognizes a

Mary Grace Vinson v. Tommy Junior Vinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2018 | Docket: 8145456

Published

best interests of the child as enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the factors

Darlene S. Horton, Former Wife v. John D. Horton, Former Husband

257 So. 3d 1197

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 2018 | Docket: 8140899

Published

discuss the son’s current best interests, see section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, it is unclear whether

ARLENE PREUDHOMME v. GARTH BAILEY

257 So. 3d 1032

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2018 | Docket: 8074531

Published

79 So. 3d 870, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2011)). While a change in the mode

MICHAEL LENNON v. SIMONE LENNON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2018 | Docket: 8040496

Published

child to receive mental health treatment. See § 61.13(2)(b)(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).1

Adrienne Swearingen v. Christopher Swearingen

253 So. 3d 1244

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2018 | Docket: 7804253

Published

parties’ communication rights with their child. Section 61.13(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2016), requires “at

Foster v. Chong

254 So. 3d 641

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2018 | Docket: 7805881

Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the child. § 61.13(2)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2017); Aranda v. Padilla

Keogh v. Keogh

254 So. 3d 633

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 2018 | Docket: 7819892

Published

“either under the UCCJEA or Florida Statute section 61.13.” Whether the court has jurisdiction

Solomon v. Vasquez Solomon

251 So. 3d 244

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2018 | Docket: 7225316

Published

children and make recommendations pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2016). Poliacoff rendered

Rivera v. Purtell

252 So. 3d 283

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2018 | Docket: 7317157

Published

this case starting kindergarten. In fact, section 61.13(2)(b)3.b, Florida Statutes (2016), anticipates

Brooke Larae Ness f/k/a Brooke Larae Martinez v. Robert Jason Martinez

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2018 | Docket: 7144548

Published

So. 2d 1165, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see also § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. Appellant asserts that the

JOSEPH CASTLEMAN v. JEANN SAGA BICALDO

248 So. 3d 1181

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2018 | Docket: 7061993

Published

the child or as set forth in s. 61.13.” Id. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2017), deals with child support

Elisia D. Preudhomme, Former Wife v. Kenneth Preudhomme, Former Husband

245 So. 3d 989

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 2018 | Docket: 6384505

Published

court erred in its custody determination under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, because the court’s findings

Christopher Morris v. Sean Morris

255 So. 3d 908

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2018 | Docket: 6379304

Published

interest of the child standard outlined in section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Giving great weight to the

VANESSA LEWIS v. JASON JULIANO

242 So. 3d 1146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2018 | Docket: 6366311

Published

responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing.” § 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2017). 1Although we do not

Christopher Blake Russell v. Laura P. Russell

240 So. 3d 890

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2018 | Docket: 6355442

Published

modification was in the child’s best interest. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“A determination of parental

GEORGE CONNER L. BROWN v. TARA LIN BROWN

239 So. 3d 1271

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2018 | Docket: 6336220

Published

court to make the necessary factual findings. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); Clark v. Clark, 825 So

ELIZABETH LAMORTE v. PABLO TESTONI

238 So. 3d 855

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333503

Published

section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes, applies. See § 61.13(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The court initially

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms—Nomenclature

235 So. 3d 357

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2018 | Docket: 60294212

Published

forms in accordance with recent amendments to section 61.13(2)(b)3.a, Florida Statutes (2017). See ch. 2016-241

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms - Nomenclature

235 So. 3d 357

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2018 | Docket: 6289808

Published

forms in accordance with recent amendments to section 61.13(2)(b)3.a., Florida Statutes (2017). See ch.

Verrier v. Oaks

235 So. 3d 1050

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2018 | Docket: 60286101

Published

forth any findings regarding the factors under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2016), when it rendered

JULIE WOHLBERG v. MICHAEL CONNER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 10, 2018 | Docket: 6258284

Published

concerned.”) (alteration and citations omitted); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“For purposes of . . . modifying

Ivko v. Ger

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2017 | Docket: 6244879

Published

assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction.1 See § 61.13(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. 1 Further, if a child support

DEPT. OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFC., O/B/O SABRINA K. SAJET v. BILL OLSON JEAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2017 | Docket: 6240871

Published

Registry.” § 742.032(2), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also § 61.13(7)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016). Despite this authority

Earl Raymond Campos v. Joana Campos

230 So. 3d 553

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2017 | Docket: 6182906

Published

upon proper pleading and sufficient evidence. § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) (requiring “a showing of

Hailey A. Neville, Mother v. Ryan A. McKibben, Father

227 So. 3d 1270, 2017 WL 4411959

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 2017 | Docket: 6164205

Published

requirements for custody determinations under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2015). We agree in part and

Carson v. Carson

226 So. 3d 374, 2017 WL 4103217, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13197

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2017 | Docket: 6160703

Published

each Tuesday of the eight-week program. Section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), authorizes a

Patel v. Patel

226 So. 3d 361, 2017 WL 4077848

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2017 | Docket: 6152931

Published

“modification is in the best interests of the child.” See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also Howell v. Howell

Cardona v. Paulhiac Casas

225 So. 3d 384, 2017 WL 3495880, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11726

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2017 | Docket: 6138604

Published

security as listed in the Final Judgment.” While section 61.13(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes authorizes the

Downs v. Ledoux-Nottingham

219 So. 3d 244, 2017 WL 2200229, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7179

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2017 | Docket: 6066361

Published

grandparent visitation as a -matter of law, finding section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2013), inapplicable, as it

Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Tisdale v. Jackson

217 So. 3d 192, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5104

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 2017 | Docket: 5099897

Published

child support ended on December 17, 2015. Section 61.13(l)(a)l.a., Florida Statutes (2016), provides

Gonzalez v. Hewitt

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2017 | Docket: 4618894

Published

the best interest of the child pursuant to section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2016), and by failing

Nunez-Miller v. Miller

209 So. 3d 619, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 2017 | Docket: 4571008

Published

order in Florida. Furthermore, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2015), the proper venue

Naime v. Corzo III

208 So. 3d 296, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18674

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2016 | Docket: 4555828

Published

then existing factors it had decreed in former section 61.13(2)(d) that “the court must consider” in reaching

Cranney v. Cranney

206 So. 3d 162, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18335

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2016 | Docket: 4552654

Published

court detailed all of the factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2015), that pertain to

Michael Koch, Former Husband v. Emily A. Koch, Former Wife

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 2016 | Docket: 4548155

Published

harmful to the child.” However, because section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015) requires Florida

McKay v. McElhiney

205 So. 3d 845, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17418

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 23, 2016 | Docket: 4544280

Published

court’s ruling, its failure to comply with section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2014), and its failure to

Murphy v. Murphy

206 So. 3d 807, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17374

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2016 | Docket: 4544021

Published

not covered by health insurance. See § 61.13(b), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Harris v

Stuart L. Haddan v. Ann C. Jenks

202 So. 3d 975, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16644

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2016 | Docket: 4486772

Published

best interests of the child, see section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2015); Clark v.

Loza v. Marin

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 2016 | Docket: 4121188

Published

language concerning continuing jurisdiction in section 61.13(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2010).

Loza v. Marin

198 So. 3d 1017, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12185, 2016 WL 4261396

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 2016 | Docket: 4119212

Published

language concerning continuing jurisdiction in section 61.13(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2010). Husband

J. P., Father of the Minor Child, J.P. v. Department of Children and Families

196 So. 3d 1274, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12225

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2016 | Docket: 4116966

Published

Considering the best interests factors set forth in section 61.13(3)(a)-(t), Florida Statutes, the court found

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. Malgrot NUNEZ, Appellee

196 So. 3d 1271, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12224, 2016 WL 4446064

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2016 | Docket: 4116967

Published

764-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). See also § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). Section 61.30(l)(a)

Department of Revenue v. Juan Llamas and Jennifer Duque

196 So. 3d 1267, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12223, 2016 WL 4446050

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2016 | Docket: 4116968

Published

“substantial change in the circumstances of the parties.” § 61.13(l)(a)2., Fla. Stat.; see also § 61.14(l)(a), Fla

J.N.S. v. A.M.A.

194 So. 3d 559, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9675, 2016 WL 3452536

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2016 | Docket: 60255827

Published

considered evidence of domestic violence. See § 61.13(3)(m), Fla. Stat.. (2012) (requiring the court

J.N.S. v. A.M.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2016 | Docket: 3091561

Published

considered evidence of domestic violence. See § 61.13(3)(m), Fla. Stat. (2012) (requiring the court

Cilenti v. Cilenti

192 So. 3d 673, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8260, 2016 WL 3090565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2016 | Docket: 3068947

Published

the deviation from section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014). Section 61.13(l)(b) provides that

Songur v. Songur

190 So. 3d 267, 2016 WL 2760103, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7305

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 2016 | Docket: 3065881

Published

-in the child’s best interest. See § 61.13(2)(c)2.a., Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Henderson

D.M.J. v. A.J.T.

190 So. 3d 1129, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6541, 2016 WL 1718857

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2016 | Docket: 60254753

Published

2d DCA 2014) (alternation in original) (quoting § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2012)). “It is well settled that-

Corina Castillo Marquez v. Fredy Lopez

187 So. 3d 335, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3602, 2016 WL 899334

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2016 | Docket: 3042779

Published

separate findings as to each of the factors in section 61.13(3), but it must find, at a minimum, that its

In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS

205 So. 3d 1, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 647, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 2607

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 2015 | Docket: 3014109

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must

Timmons v. Timmons

179 So. 3d 380, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16135, 2015 WL 6575864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 2015 | Docket: 3008639

Published

wife, Lori Timmons, asserts on appeal that section 61.13.01(1)(b)(2), -Florida Statutes (2014), requires

Russell v. Pasik

178 So. 3d 55, 2015 WL 5947198

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2015 | Docket: 2919902

Published

visitation and timesharing are governed by section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2014). And "[b]y its

Fosshage v. Fosshage

167 So. 3d 525, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10723, 2015 WL 4257864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2015 | Docket: 2674012

Published

with the child. Based solely on the factors of section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes, the Special Magistrate

Moore v. Morgan

168 So. 3d 328, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10374, 2015 WL 4106718

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 8, 2015 | Docket: 60248644

Published

modification before the trial court pursuant to section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2014), to address any

April Michelle Moore v. Roy Daniel Morgan

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2015 | Docket: 2671918

Published

modification before the trial court pursuant to section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2014), to address any

Herman v. Herman

170 So. 3d 833, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9232

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2015 | Docket: 2665798

Published

parental responsibility to Mother - and Father. Section 61.13(2)(C)(2), Florida Statutes (2015), states “[t]he

Mourra v. Mourra

164 So. 3d 1273, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8920, 2015 WL 3631613

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2015 | Docket: 60247923

Published

and unanticipated change in circumstances. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2014). SAWAYA, EVANDER and BERGER

Edgar v. Firuta

165 So. 3d 758, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7558, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1184

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 2015 | Docket: 2658324

Published

interests of the child” factors enumerated in section 61.13(a)-(t). Here, as in Landingham v. Landingham

Brandon-Thomas v. Brandon-Thomas

163 So. 3d 644, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6051, 2015 WL 1874457

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2015 | Docket: 2652144

Published

has long subscribed' to that precept. See, e.g., § 61.13(2)(c) (“The court shall determine all matters relating

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

173 So. 3d 19, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 163, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 583, 2015 WL 1343088

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2015 | Docket: 2644899

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must

Maguire v. Wright

157 So. 3d 493, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1924, 2015 WL 585459

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2015 | Docket: 60246078

Published

While separate findings as to each factor in section 61.13(3) are not required to sustain a temporary award

Elizabeth Chamberlain v. John Douglas Eisinger

159 So. 3d 185, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1847, 2015 WL 542990

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2015 | Docket: 2633410

Published

consideration is the best interest of the children. § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2012); see Knipe v. Knipe

Chalmers v. Burrough

156 So. 3d 536, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 2015 WL 73805

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 2015 | Docket: 2621531

Published

would be detrimental to the child. See § 61.13(2)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2012); Hunter v. Hunter

In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure

154 So. 3d 301

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2014 | Docket: 60294020

Published

limited to the statutory factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes. (d) Order Appointing Social

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure

154 So. 3d 301, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 774, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3779, 2014 WL 7212609

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2014 | Docket: 2616693

Published

limited to the statutory factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes. (d) Order Appointing

Clayton v. Clayton

152 So. 3d 762, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19779, 2014 WL 6833041

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2014 | Docket: 60244984

Published

Second, the final judgment fails to comply with section 61.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), in that it does

Lori A. Ford v. Michael Withers Ford

153 So. 3d 315, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19525, 2014 WL 6674771

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 2014 | Docket: 2609437

Published

marriage. (emphasis added). Additionally, in section 61.13(2)(a), the legislature clearly gave the court

Vazquez v. Vazquez-Robelledo

150 So. 3d 855, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18004, 2014 WL 5653398

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 2014 | Docket: 2592991

Published

they are not supported by the evidence. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2013), provides that the

Velaga v. Gudapati

148 So. 3d 550, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955, 2014 WL 5286514

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2014 | Docket: 1409309

Published

insurance policy in order to secure the award. § 61.13(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). However, the court’s

Benjamin D. Rolison v. Rachel L. Rolison

144 So. 3d 610

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2014 | Docket: 753784

Published

counterpetition were filed). We note that section 61.13, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:

Turnier v. Stockman

139 So. 3d 397, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7708, 2014 WL 2116363

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2014 | Docket: 60241090

Published

After considering the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2013), the trial court

In Re: Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 1, 2014 | Docket: 57368

Published

subsequently apply, pursuant to section 61.13(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes, to require

Matura v. Griffith

135 So. 3d 377, 2014 WL 338750, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1138

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2014 | Docket: 60239599

Published

factors in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, it appears to have overlooked section 61.13(2)(c)2., Florida

C.G. v. J.R.

130 So. 3d 776, 2014 WL 340675, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1155

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2014 | Docket: 60237890

Published

many of the child custody factors set out in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2012), favored placement

Brown v. Brown

124 So. 3d 424, 2013 WL 5779563, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17059

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2013 | Docket: 60235492

Published

Marino, 46 So.3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, requires proof that modification

Fetzer v. Evans

123 So. 3d 124, 2013 WL 5575502, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16186

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2013 | Docket: 60234974

Published

judgment determining time-sharing, pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes. We first note that Former

Zamperla v. Pope

120 So. 3d 132, 2013 WL 4252977, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12854

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2013 | Docket: 60233918

Published

the authority and the discretion pursuant to section 61.13(4)(c)(l)-(7) to impose make-up visitation and

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

117 So. 3d 958, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1964, 2013 WL 3334307

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2013 | Docket: 60232868

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Russell v. McQueen

115 So. 3d 1084, 2013 WL 3100777, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2013 | Docket: 60232085

Published

to the basic [child support] obligation ....” § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). An option is therefore

Department of Revenue ex rel. Mash v. Ingram

112 So. 3d 169, 2013 WL 1923791, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7562

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 2013 | Docket: 60231011

Published

current public policy of this state, described in section 61.13(2)(c)1. & 2., Florida Statutes, “that each minor

Hardman v. Koslowski

107 So. 3d 1246, 2013 WL 692827, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3147

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2013 | Docket: 60228617

Published

obsolete under the 2008 amend*1248ments to section 61.13, Florida Statutes, in favor of a policy promoting

Neuman v. Harper

106 So. 3d 974, 2013 WL 461785, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1938

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2013 | Docket: 60228515

Published

considered and weighed the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2011). The majority of

Davis v. Davis

108 So. 3d 660, 2013 WL 461875, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2004

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2013 | Docket: 60229193

Published

after considering the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2010). On review, we agree

Hammesfahr v. Hammesfahr

104 So. 3d 1129, 2012 WL 5935626, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20324

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 2012 | Docket: 60227299

Published

trial court to fail to address that issue. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (2011). On remand, the trial court

Van Looven v. Van Looven

100 So. 3d 148, 2012 WL 4839771, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17614

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2012 | Docket: 60225646

Published

requesting modification, the court then considered section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), “which governs

Langdon v. Langdon

96 So. 3d 1053, 2012 WL 3745039, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14475

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 2012 | Docket: 60311404

Published

all the evidence and the factors indicated in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2009), the parties shall

Piedra v. Piedra

126 So. 3d 1104, 2012 WL 2014306, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2012 | Docket: 60236186

Published

in accordance with their respective share. Section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), provides, in

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

96 So. 3d 217, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 386, 2012 WL 1869337, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 1143

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 24, 2012 | Docket: 60311512

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Mayo v. Mayo

87 So. 3d 820, 2012 WL 1605751, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7290

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2012 | Docket: 60308055

Published

“time-sharing,” using “visitation” to mean what section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), refers to as

Marriage of Guizzardi v. Guizzardi

89 So. 3d 967, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6837, 2012 WL 1520864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2012 | Docket: 60308862

Published

following evaluation of the criteria listed therein); § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005) (governing relocation

In Re Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

84 So. 3d 274, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 230, 2012 WL 851105, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 551

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2012 | Docket: 2413191

Published

any party may subsequently apply, pursuant to section 61.13(1)(d)(3), Florida Statutes, to require

Khutorsky v. Ilina

75 So. 3d 848, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19914, 2011 WL 6183527

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2011 | Docket: 60303963

Published

unanticipated change in circumstances under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, and deleted the provision

Calloway v. Tawil

71 So. 3d 934, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16181, 2011 WL 5108490

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2011 | Docket: 60303179

Published

Levy, 861 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); see also § 61.13(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) (demonstrated capacity

Calloway v. Tawil

71 So. 3d 934, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16181, 2011 WL 5108490

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2011 | Docket: 60303179

Published

Levy, 861 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); see also § 61.13(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) (demonstrated capacity

Wraight v. Wraight

71 So. 3d 139, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13413, 2011 WL 3754715

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2011 | Docket: 60302905

Published

statutory factors relevant to the dissolution under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, and the factors relevant

N.H. v. J.E.T.

66 So. 3d 1056

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2011 | Docket: 60301823

Published

responsibility to be in the child’s best interest. See § 61.13(2)(b), (3), Fla. Stat. (2010). Competent, substantial

Nh v. Jet

66 So. 3d 1056, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12142, 2011 WL 3303480

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2011 | Docket: 2589762

Published

responsibility to be in the child's best interest. See § 61.13(2)(b), (3), Fla. Stat. (2010). Competent, substantial

Arcot v. Balaraman

57 So. 3d 907, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570, 2011 WL 917526

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2011 | Docket: 60299190

Published

by Florida’s dissolution of marriage law. See § 61.13(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“It is the public

In Re Amend. to the Fla. Family Law Forms

59 So. 3d 792

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 2010 | Docket: 2361433

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

In Re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules

55 So. 3d 381, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 524, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1632, 2010 WL 3781979

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2010 | Docket: 1931936

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. A parenting course must be

Dmg v. Gem

32 So. 3d 750, 2010 WL 1628776

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2010 | Docket: 1197182

Published

at section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2006). With respect to the factor listed at section 61.13(3)(f)

D.M.G. v. G.E.M.

32 So. 3d 750, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5339

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2010 | Docket: 60289889

Published

at section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2006). With respect to the factor listed at section 61.13(3)(f)

Fast v. Nelson

22 So. 3d 109, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14086, 2009 WL 3013767

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2009 | Docket: 1639639

Published

resided there with the parties' then-minor son. See § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2008). Venue was also proper

Hinz v. Johnson

14 So. 3d 275, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10603, 2009 WL 2338036

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2009 | Docket: 60241309

Published

Richardson, the Florida Supreme Court found section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1999), to be unconstitutional

A.V. v. M.G.

993 So. 2d 1140, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2008 | Docket: 64856341

Published

2d 401, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (construing section 61.13(2)(d), the prior version of the current parental

In Re Amendments to Fla. to Family Law Rules of Procedure

981 So. 2d 1189, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 261, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 743, 2008 WL 1819683

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2008 | Docket: 1515653

Published

served. For more information, you may consult section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Some circuits may require

Perdido Sun Condominium Ass'n v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

545 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19463, 2008 WL 686954

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2008 | Docket: 2317882

Published

property is in Zone A11 and, pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 61.13, an amendatory endorsement is required in order

Perdido Sun Condominium Ass'n v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

545 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19463, 2008 WL 686954

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2008 | Docket: 2317882

Published

property is in Zone A11 and, pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 61.13, an amendatory endorsement is required in order

Perdices v. Perdices

959 So. 2d 297, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5647, 2007 WL 1135687

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2007 | Docket: 64851252

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 61.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006); Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So.2d 608 (Fla

Mejia v. Santana

948 So. 2d 1007, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2404, 2007 WL 518629

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2007 | Docket: 64849174

Published

child to secure her child support obligation, see § 61.13(l)(c), Mr. Santana concedes that there was no evidence

Echezarreta v. Echezarreta

944 So. 2d 1169, 2006 WL 3615120

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2006 | Docket: 1157121

Published

parental responsibility would be governed by section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2003), which includes the

Reiner v. Wright

942 So. 2d 944, 2006 WL 3327677

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2006 | Docket: 1442581

Published

because their custody did not emanate from section 61.13(7), which Richardson held unconstitutional,

Liss v. Liss

937 So. 2d 760, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14883, 2006 WL 2557958

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 2006 | Docket: 64846724

Published

protect support of minor children is identical. See § 61.13(c), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“To the extent necessary

Cranney v. Coronado

920 So. 2d 132, 2006 WL 229042

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2006 | Docket: 1730628

Published

or (c) the child was born out of wedlock); cf. § 61.13(7) (providing that "the court may recognize the

K.A.S. v. R.E.T.

914 So. 2d 1056, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2005 | Docket: 64840958

Published

be unconstitutional. See, e.g., id. (holding section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), unconstitutional);

Corcoran-Wich v. Wich

913 So. 2d 1269, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 17973, 2005 WL 3051389

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 2005 | Docket: 64840848

Published

hearing and consider the factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes. KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur

In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure

913 So. 2d 545, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 672, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1987, 2005 WL 2456192

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2005 | Docket: 64840753

Published

Court’s case law regarding chapter 752 as well as section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2001)). Thus, the form is

Pierandozzi v. Perry

910 So. 2d 295, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12004, 2005 WL 1812714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2005 | Docket: 64840290

Published

child without considering the factors listed in section 61.13, Florida Statutes, under which the court determines

Levenshon v. Levenshon

907 So. 2d 602, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11088, 2005 WL 1680745

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 2005 | Docket: 64839678

Published

spends the child support for Jamie. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(l)(a). 11. Ira’s counsel has heaped an incredible

Dudley v. Dudley

899 So. 2d 483, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5199, 2005 WL 856049

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 2005 | Docket: 64837654

Published

continuing contact with the nonresidential parent. See § 61.13(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). The trial court, sitting

Ferri v. Apple

900 So. 2d 673, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4740, 2005 WL 780321

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2005 | Docket: 64837901

Published

of primary residence and custody pursuant to section 61.13(4)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2004), when the

Evans v. Woodard

898 So. 2d 230, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3547, 2005 WL 597868

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2005 | Docket: 64837342

Published

child. On this point, we agree with the father. Section 61.13(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2004), provides

Kaschak v. Kaschak

890 So. 2d 427, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19991, 2004 WL 2996859

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 2004 | Docket: 64835280

Published

circumstances before modifying custody pursuant to section 61.13(4)(c)5., Florida Statutes (2003). We find, under

Raleigh v. Smith

882 So. 2d 1055, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12487, 2004 WL 1882559

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2004 | Docket: 64832860

Published

residence of the children to the father under section 61.13(4)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2001), without considering

Lowrey v. Lee

873 So. 2d 604, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7537, 2004 WL 1175258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 2004 | Docket: 64830719

Published

evaluation of each of the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2003). Competent substantial

Tomkins v. Tomkins

873 So. 2d 522, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6999, 2004 WL 1103702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2004 | Docket: 64830687

Published

relocate with a minor child is governed by section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2003). Here, the trial

Bockle v. Russell

869 So. 2d 772, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5030, 2004 WL 784666

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 64829208

Published

responsibilities, and joys, of child rearing.” § 61.13(2)(b)(l), Fla. Stat. (2003). Because of this policy

A.D. v. K.S.

869 So. 2d 39, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2571, 2004 WL 385018

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2004 | Docket: 64829105

Published

The Florida Supreme Court recently declared section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), unconstitutional

Thornburg v. Donovan

866 So. 2d 176, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1824, 2004 WL 314496

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 2004 | Docket: 64828282

Published

jurisdiction and improper venue, arguing that under section 61.13(2)(c) of the Florida Statutes (2003) the Seminole

J.L. v. G.L.

863 So. 2d 428, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19741, 2003 WL 23095276

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2003 | Docket: 64827483

Published

child support is placed on “parents.” See, e.g., § 61.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) (“In a proceeding for

Young v. Luther

856 So. 2d 1098, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15653, 2003 WL 22358190

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2003 | Docket: 64825818

Published

consider the relocation factors set forth in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes. See Wilson v. Wilson

King v. Jordan

850 So. 2d 645, 2003 WL 21713719

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2003 | Docket: 1783484

Published

custody of their daughter, Porsche, pursuant to section 61.13(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2000). We agree.

Pitt v. Benzenhafer

843 So. 2d 1021, 2003 WL 2005226

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2003 | Docket: 2529342

Published

Because the court erred in its application of section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), we reverse.

Perez v. Perez

840 So. 2d 319, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1367, 2003 WL 289239

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 2003 | Docket: 64821312

Published

Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); § 61.13(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2002). The appellant

M.R.L. ex rel. A.F.L. v. Department of Children & Families

835 So. 2d 1261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 941, 2003 WL 215062

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2003 | Docket: 64820181

Published

child of visiting the appellant in prison. See § 61.13(2)(b) 2, Fla. Stat. (2000). Based upon the concession

Kasdaglis v. Department of Health

827 So. 2d 328, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13984, 2002 WL 31114914

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 2002 | Docket: 64817883

Published

responsibility would be detrimental to a child. See § 61.13(2)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). DOH produced no evidence

Ramos v. Steven

816 So. 2d 1253, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7623, 2002 WL 1071928

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2002 | Docket: 64815382

Published

prison would be “detrimental to the children.” § 61.13(2)002, Fla. Stat. (2000). The summary disposition

Shaw v. Shaw

816 So. 2d 540, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 346, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 788, 2002 WL 571635

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2002 | Docket: 64815189

Published

court correctly recognized that, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)2.b., Florida Statutes (1997), a court

Roman v. Lopez

811 So. 2d 840, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3924, 2002 WL 460398

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 2002 | Docket: 64813541

Published

authorizes parenting courses. In addition, section 61.13(4)(c)(2), Florida Statutes (2001), authorizes

Foti v. Camejo

812 So. 2d 507, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3559, 2002 WL 427715

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 2002 | Docket: 64813870

Published

court, based upon the former wife’s residency. See § 61.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat

Kemper v. Kemper

807 So. 2d 711, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 946, 2002 WL 125621

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2002 | Docket: 64812594

Published

filed her petition was not a legitimate move. Section 61.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2001) provides: The

Robbins v. JACKSON NAT. LIFE INS. CO.

802 So. 2d 476, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18022, 2001 WL 1635558

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2001 | Docket: 1332536

Published

insurable interest to purchase these policies. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1991); Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863

McLauchlan v. McLauchlan

795 So. 2d 247, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13588, 2001 WL 1141872

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2001 | Docket: 64808811

Published

trial court and this court are to be guided by section 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. It seems axiomatic, however

Bracken v. Bracken

795 So. 2d 225, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13463, 2001 WL 1131562

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2001 | Docket: 64808801

Published

Because the court erred in its application of section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2000), we reverse.

Smith v. Koolidge

780 So. 2d 1025, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4048, 2001 WL 313886

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2001 | Docket: 64804433

Published

2d 26 (Fla.2000), that Spence is grounded on section 61.13.2 We recognized, however, that where there is

Crittenden v. Gatlin

778 So. 2d 1087, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2464, 2001 WL 219114

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2001 | Docket: 64803954

Published

after considering the child’s best interests. See § 61.13(4), Fla. Stat. (2000); Crutchfield v. Crutchfield

Roselli v. Roselli

780 So. 2d 284, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2461, 2001 WL 219147

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2001 | Docket: 64804343

Published

original final judgment was entered there. See § 61.13(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2000). Other petitions in this

Engram v. Bryan

779 So. 2d 586, 2001 WL 127345

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2001 | Docket: 420204

Published

consideration of the best interests of the child. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1991). This court has previously discouraged

Andrade v. Dantas

776 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1084, 2001 WL 98639

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 7, 2001 | Docket: 64803400

Published

of children of any age must be treated equally. § 61.13(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2000); Kerr, 486 So.2d

Swisher v. Woodcock

772 So. 2d 611, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16147, 2000 WL 1819470

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2000 | Docket: 64802093

Published

the standards articulated in cases construing section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. Subsequent decisions of

K.N.B. v. M.C.

779 So. 2d 508, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15998

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2000 | Docket: 64804185

Published

children.” This language tracks the language in section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1997). The grandmother

Iazzetta v. Ceruti

771 So. 2d 619, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15218, 2000 WL 1727023

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2000 | Docket: 64801785

Published

affirm the court’s discretion in this regard. See § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). However, the court also

Worthington v. MacGregor

771 So. 2d 576, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13915, 2000 WL 1629952

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 2000 | Docket: 64801754

Published

justify a modification of visitation, in light of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1999), which vests broad

Sokol v. Sokol

763 So. 2d 568, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10146, 2000 WL 1114282

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 2000 | Docket: 64799046

Published

general master correctly applied the criteria of section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1997), in determining who

Goins v. Goins

762 So. 2d 1049, 2000 WL 1033053

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2000 | Docket: 1690795

Published

to be without any meaning or significance. Section 61.13(3) speaks of primary residence in the context

Shaw v. Shaw

760 So. 2d 981, 2000 WL 690308

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2000 | Docket: 1324657

Published

attendance at parenting classes must be plead. Section 61.13(4)(c) authorizes a court to "order the custodial

Newton v. Alabama Ins. Underwriting

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 20, 2000 | Docket: 237961

Published

that of FEMA or the United States, see 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f), and they may use their own, individual “customary

Newton v. Alabama Ins. Underwriting

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 20, 2000 | Docket: 395791

Published

that of FEMA or the United States, see 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f), and they may use their own, individual "customary

Newton v. Alabama Ins. Underwriting

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 20, 2000 | Docket: 2037997

Published

that of FEMA or the United States, see 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f), and they may use their own, individual “customary

Newton v. Alabama Ins. Underwriting

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 20, 2000 | Docket: 237962

Published

that of FEMA or the United States, see 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(f), and they may use their own, individual "customary

Osherow v. Osherow

757 So. 2d 519, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3424, 2000 WL 294513

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2000 | Docket: 64797143

Published

will best protect the children from further harm. § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1997). Under these principles

Kleckner v. Kleckner

751 So. 2d 116, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2000 WL 5927

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 2000 | Docket: 64794961

Published

custody. In so doing, the trial court relied on section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1997), finding that while

Gallivan v. Gallivan

743 So. 2d 1185, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14224, 1999 WL 974146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1999 | Docket: 64791931

Published

the best interests of the minor children. See § 61.13(2)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); Kuutti v. Kuutti

Curry v. Robbins

744 So. 2d 527, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13446, 1999 WL 817954

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1999 | Docket: 64792051

Published

contempt for behavior in which she did not engage. Section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), provides alternative

Rinehart v. Rinehart

734 So. 2d 1185, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8644, 1999 WL 434876

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1999 | Docket: 64788751

Published

this is one factor the court can consider. See § 61.13(3)(i), Fla. Stat. (1997); Blosser v. Blosser, 707

Walczak v. Walczak

763 So. 2d 1055, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7921, 1999 WL 393471

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 1999 | Docket: 64799178

Published

“tender years” doctrine has been abrogated by section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes and in this district

DeMauro v. DeMauro

737 So. 2d 566, 1999 WL 371315

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1999 | Docket: 64789437

Published

lies in the circuit court of Monroe County. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). Accordingly, we affirm

Martin v. Martin

734 So. 2d 1133, 1999 WL 333107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1999 | Docket: 1442826

Published

evidence, and considering the factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1997), the court awarded

Perez v. United Parcel Service

725 So. 2d 423, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 462, 1999 WL 22397

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 22, 1999 | Docket: 64785936

Published

2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 61.13(f), which approves the award of compensation benefits

Ocasio v. McGlothin

719 So. 2d 918, 1998 WL 422793

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 1998 | Docket: 1351877

Published

considering that visitation could be granted under section 61.13(b)(2)(c), as applied to paternity actions.")

Alonso v. Alonso

716 So. 2d 838, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11046, 1998 WL 546116

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 1998 | Docket: 64782470

Published

grandmother’s purported standing to seek custody under section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993), was not available

Guerra v. Guerra

716 So. 2d 315, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566, 1998 WL 422188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 64782369

Published

Richardson, 442 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1995).

Burke v. Watterson

713 So. 2d 1094, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8714, 1998 WL 399647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 1998 | Docket: 64781775

Published

natural parent and a grandparent. He argues that section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 on which the lower

In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure

717 So. 2d 914, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 367, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1238, 1998 WL 334343

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 1998 | Docket: 64782890

Published

subsequently apply to the depository pursuant to section 61.13(l)(d)3, Florida Statutes, to require payments

State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Decrumpe v. Decrumpe

710 So. 2d 751, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5890

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 1998 | Docket: 64780881

Published

this proposition, which is now codified as section 61.13(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). The parties

Catron v. Catron

708 So. 2d 1022, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3422, 1998 WL 150457

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1998 | Docket: 64780040

Published

under the best interest criteria contained in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. It is apparent from the

Catron v. Catron

708 So. 2d 1022, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3422, 1998 WL 150457

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1998 | Docket: 64780040

Published

under the best interest criteria contained in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. It is apparent from the

Colston v. Green

742 So. 2d 280, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2860, 1998 WL 128890

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1998 | Docket: 64791340

Published

for the health insurance coverage mandated by section 61.13; 10) whether, and if so, why, ordering payment

Lucas v. Salerno

706 So. 2d 123, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1889, 1998 WL 78647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 1998 | Docket: 64779064

Published

DCA 1994), this court stated the rule that section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993), does not create

Mahnke v. Rice

703 So. 2d 1235, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 152, 1998 WL 4417

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 1998 | Docket: 64777962

Published

court should consider the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and not rely solely on

Simons v. Haddock

703 So. 2d 540, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14523, 1997 WL 795736

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1997 | Docket: 64777634

Published

seek custody of the minor children pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). The trial

Laskey v. Peeler

704 So. 2d 1066, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13982, 1997 WL 762705

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 1997 | Docket: 64778415

Published

of primary residential custody to Peeler. See § 61.13(2), (3)(c), (g), (k), Fla. Stat. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH

Stockel v. Black

703 So. 2d 496, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13956, 1997 WL 762724

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 1997 | Docket: 64777613

Published

Cf., Ch. 97-242, § 2, Laws of Fla. (amending section 61.13, effective 1 July 1997): (d) No presumption

Munson v. Munson

702 So. 2d 583, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13221, 1997 WL 721775

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1997 | Docket: 64777280

Published

court considered all the factors delineated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995). Although courts

Kane v. Dizney

702 So. 2d 1319, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13156, 1997 WL 721992

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1997 | Docket: 64777394

Published

the best interest of the children standard. Section 61.13(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), provides the

Babb v. Begines

701 So. 2d 616, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291, 1997 WL 683291

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1997 | Docket: 64776773

Published

permanent residential custody, pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1995). At a preliminary

Bellamy v. Miraglia

698 So. 2d 365, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9623, 1997 WL 488935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 1997 | Docket: 64775465

Published

governed. On July 1, 1997, one day thereafter, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), became effective

Feagle v. Feagle

696 So. 2d 959, 1997 WL 395258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1997 | Docket: 64774871

Published

available to appellant as that term is defined in section 61.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. Therefore, we REVERSE that

M.J. v. A.B.

694 So. 2d 888, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6543

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 1997 | Docket: 64774107

Published

could visit her father at a Florida prison. See § 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (1995). Our record lacks

Gardner v. Gardner

692 So. 2d 245, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4128, 1997 WL 193837

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 1997 | Docket: 64772618

Published

child when the insurance is reasonably available.” § 61.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). On remand, the trial

Nelson v. Osgood

689 So. 2d 1286, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2735, 1997 WL 131573

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1997 | Docket: 64771842

Published

continuing visitation” with the non-eustodial parent. § 61.13(3), Fla.Stat. (1995). While the weekend visitation

Fuxan v. Seaholm

685 So. 2d 899, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12297, 1996 WL 673341

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1996 | Docket: 64770158

Published

initial custody determination. The court made the section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1995) findings and concluded

Arthur v. Anderson

681 So. 2d 796, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10292, 1996 WL 557745

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 2, 1996 | Docket: 64768426

Published

asserts that the shared parental law provision of section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1995), is inapplicable;

Zucker v. Zucker

672 So. 2d 604, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4067

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 1996 | Docket: 64764066

Published

SPEISER, MARK A., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 61.13(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent

McPherson v. East

670 So. 2d 1196, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3466, 1996 WL 154473

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1996 | Docket: 64763546

Published

the child were considered by the trial court. § 61.13(3), Fla.Stat. (1995); Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So

Snyder v. Snyder

685 So. 2d 1320, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1362, 1996 WL 65773

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 1996 | Docket: 64770248

Published

347 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1993), enumerates an uninclu-sive

Elliott v. Elliott

666 So. 2d 276, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 1996 WL 15489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1996 | Docket: 64761350

Published

responsibility would be detrimental to the child, see § 61.13(2)(b)(2), Fla.Stat. (1993). Upon appellee’s concession

S.G. v. G.G.

666 So. 2d 203, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13199

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1995 | Docket: 64761309

Published

discuss only two. Appellant first argues that section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993) does not create

Lewis v. Lewis

667 So. 2d 390, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12467, 1995 WL 710184

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1995 | Docket: 64761974

Published

when the insurance is reasonably available.” Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). In the final

Dillingham v. Dillingham

667 So. 2d 337, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11095, 1995 WL 619883

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 1995 | Docket: 64761957

Published

affecting the welfare and interests of the child.” § 61.13(3), Fla.Stat. (1993). Here the former wife has

McCartney v. McCartney

659 So. 2d 371, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7333, 1995 WL 396325

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1995 | Docket: 64758339

Published

which created section 61.13(4), Florida Statutes.1 Sub*373section (b) of section 61.13(4) prohibits withholding

Kopec v. Severance

658 So. 2d 1060, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6786, 1995 WL 370777

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1995 | Docket: 64758112

Published

her own medical transcription business. . Section 61.13(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994) provides:

Saucier v. Willis

656 So. 2d 252, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8956, 1995 WL 348298

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 1995 | Docket: 64757148

Published

Ketola v. Ketola, 636 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA) (section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes, abolished the “tender

Terminello v. Terminello

650 So. 2d 705, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 1995 WL 79919

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 1995 | Docket: 64754382

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490; § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla.Stat. (1994); Delgado v. Silvarrey

Terminello v. Terminello

650 So. 2d 705, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 1995 WL 79919

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 1995 | Docket: 64754382

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490; § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla.Stat. (1994); Delgado v. Silvarrey

Pyne v. Black

650 So. 2d 1073, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1578

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 1995 | Docket: 64754446

Published

change until 1986 when the legislature enacted § 61.13(4)(b).' Effective October 1, 1986 a noncustodial

Mann v. Mann

641 So. 2d 925, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7497, 1994 WL 391317

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1994 | Docket: 64750514

Published

his present employment, at a reasonable rate. § 61.13(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). Similarly, the former

Zisholtz v. Zisholtz

629 So. 2d 296, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12537, 1993 WL 530921

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1993 | Docket: 64745025

Published

consideration of each of the factors enumerated in Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. Based on this review,

Pariser v. Pariser

636 So. 2d 741, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12536, 1993 WL 530894

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1993 | Docket: 64748285

Published

interests of the children in accordance with section 61.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), not the inability

Fenner v. Fenner

629 So. 2d 918, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11932, 1993 WL 492552

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 1993 | Docket: 64745367

Published

motion seeking to enforce his rights under section 61.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes.

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Pendino

625 So. 2d 1292, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10975, 1993 WL 435893

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1993 | Docket: 64743814

Published

have ended. Respondent’s apparent reliance on section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), also supports

Hinsley v. Whited

623 So. 2d 611, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8916, 1993 WL 331909

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1993 | Docket: 64698464

Published

shared parental responsibility, as set out by section 61.13(2), Florida Statutes (1989). Hinsley received

Kates v. Kates

619 So. 2d 413, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6075, 1993 WL 186540

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 1993 | Docket: 64696609

Published

bias, however, is contrary to the dictates of section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes.

Washington v. Fudge

616 So. 2d 196, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4167, 1993 WL 108076

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1993 | Docket: 64695295

Published

compliance with the visitation schedule. D.F.W.; § 61.13(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991). See Hoffman v. Foley,

Washington v. Washington

613 So. 2d 594, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1653

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1993 | Docket: 64694003

Published

made by the Seminole County circuit court. Section 61.13(l)(a)2 gives the original circuit court that

Powell v. Powell

604 So. 2d 30, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9260, 1992 WL 206405

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 1992 | Docket: 64669431

Published

himself to defy the clear legislative mandate of section 61.13(2)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (1989),1 resulting

Sragowicz v. Sragowicz

603 So. 2d 1323, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8638, 1992 WL 191595

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1992 | Docket: 64669399

Published

grandparents’ visitation rights pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), and the

Hays v. Hays

599 So. 2d 190, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4743, 1992 WL 86185

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1992 | Docket: 64667528

Published

inadequate to protect the welfare of the child. See section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes, which recognizes “[i]t

Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. Branscomb v. Branscomb

597 So. 2d 922, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4512, 1992 WL 81080

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 1992 | Docket: 64666863

Published

through the county depository as described in section 61.13(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm the

Freeburg v. Freeburg

596 So. 2d 794, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3940, 1992 WL 69023

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 1992 | Docket: 64666553

Published

including the parents’ moral and mental fitness. § 61.-13(3)(f)-(g), Fla.Stat. (1989). We recognize that

Kirchen v. Kirchen

595 So. 2d 129, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1252, 1992 WL 25900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1992 | Docket: 64665828

Published

substantial change in the circumstances of the parties.” § 61.-13(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). That change must be “significant

Lawlor v. Lawlor

591 So. 2d 330, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 141, 1992 WL 2010

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 10, 1992 | Docket: 64664247

Published

necessary nonreimbursable costs without limitation. Section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989) provides that

McNaughton v. Doerr

590 So. 2d 14, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11918, 1991 WL 253336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 1991 | Docket: 64663485

Published

motion in fact again be filed, it must consider section 61.13(2)(b)2.c., and the provision for awarding grandparent

McNaughton v. Doerr

590 So. 2d 14, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11918, 1991 WL 253336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 1991 | Docket: 64663485

Published

motion in fact again be filed, it must consider section 61.13(2)(b)2.c., and the provision for awarding grandparent

Duncan v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

589 So. 2d 982, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11273, 1991 WL 231859

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1991 | Docket: 64663271

Published

of the Shared Parental Responsibility Law, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1982). Allen did not address

Herndon v. Herndon

575 So. 2d 792, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2106, 1991 WL 32071

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1991 | Docket: 64656900

Published

grandparents may move for visitation under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, in a pending action, either

Hren v. Hren

575 So. 2d 766, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1883, 1991 WL 29500

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1991 | Docket: 64656879

Published

stipulated pleadings to the contrary is judicial error. § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1989). Husband’s Rule 1.540

Lasky v. Davis

574 So. 2d 308, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1106, 1991 WL 17301

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1991 | Docket: 64656348

Published

obligations pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1989). Under section 61.13, a trial court retains

Hunter v. Hunter

566 So. 2d 363, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6662, 1990 WL 136619

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 1990 | Docket: 64652723

Published

periodic reviews, to ensure that the purposes of section 61.13(2), Florida Statutes (1987), are not frustrated

Cortright v. Cortright

564 So. 2d 1261, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5958, 1990 WL 114705

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 1990 | Docket: 64652037

Published

shared parental responsibility as required by section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1989). The wife concedes

Cuffie v. Cuffie

564 So. 2d 587, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5450, 1990 WL 105515

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 1990 | Docket: 64651877

Published

because the judge ignored the requirement of section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1987), that “after

Poole v. Savage

561 So. 2d 360, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3098, 1990 WL 57788

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1990 | Docket: 64650646

Published

enactment of Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, relating to shared parental responsibility. Section 61.13 has no

Doe v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

563 So. 2d 655

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1990 | Docket: 64651274

Published

relevant in custody battle between parents; Section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes, provides in part as

Herndon v. Herndon

554 So. 2d 33, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7319, 1989 WL 155663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1989 | Docket: 64647146

Published

the grandparents to seek relief pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes. GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STONE

Ginder v. Ginder

544 So. 2d 349, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1448, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3492, 1989 WL 65661

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 1989 | Docket: 64642923

Published

Crippen ... (emphasis supplied). See also section 61.13, Florida Statutes. Therefore, based upon the

Carr v. Phillips

540 So. 2d 168, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 667, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1307, 1989 WL 22529

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 1989 | Docket: 64641140

Published

relevant and the trial judge was in error. Section 61.13(3)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) permits the trier

DePalma v. DePalma

538 So. 2d 1290, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 387, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 583, 1989 WL 9151

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1989 | Docket: 64640711

Published

A determination of custody, as dictated by section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1986), is to consider the

Harkness v. Harkness

531 So. 2d 749, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2279, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4447, 1988 WL 101537

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1988 | Docket: 64637318

Published

accordance with the statute and equitable principles. § 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1987). The judgment as to child custody

Clark v. Render

530 So. 2d 437, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2004, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4009, 1988 WL 89227

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1988 | Docket: 64636706

Published

modification of a child-support order is justified. Section 61.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), answers the

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Apr 25, 1988 | Docket: 3257696

Published

custody, specifically s. 61.13(2)(b)2., F.S. Section 61.13, F.S., was amended in 1982 to provide for shared

Balas v. Balas

521 So. 2d 343, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 679, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 963, 1988 WL 20054

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1988 | Docket: 64633186

Published

the marriage of the parties is dissolved....” § 61.13(2)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1987). Accordingly, the denial

Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Trovillo

516 So. 2d 1145, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 45, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11708, 1987 WL 3168

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 24, 1987 | Docket: 64631555

Published

must also fail in light of the provisions of section 61.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), which provide

Sanford v. Sanford

508 So. 2d 516, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1449

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1987 | Docket: 64627834

Published

parties and the nature of the case is equitable.” § 61.13(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). Although income is a significant

Wheeler v. Wheeler

501 So. 2d 729, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 413, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6570

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 1987 | Docket: 64624683

Published

children’s welfare shall be with appellee. Section 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Florida Statutes, states: “Shared

Southeast Bank of Sarasota v. Stone

500 So. 2d 737, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 249, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6256

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1987 | Docket: 64624287

Published

support order or modification thereof pursuant to Section 61.13(l)(c), the court shall issue an income deduction

Radin v. Radin

497 So. 2d 658, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1655, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1986 | Docket: 64622982

Published

comply with the Shared Parental Responsibility Act, § 61.13(2)(b) 2, Fla.Stat. (1983). While we have some sympathy

Alford v. Alford

489 So. 2d 1246, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1408, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8455

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 1986 | Docket: 64620108

Published

abuse committed by the father against the mother. § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla.Stat. On the other hand, the evidence

Stamm v. Stamm

489 So. 2d 851, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1289, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8162

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1986 | Docket: 64619914

Published

and welfare of the child must be considered. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1985) lists ten factors

Hess v. Hess

488 So. 2d 870, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1986 | Docket: 64619492

Published

by shared parental responsibility pursuant to § 61.13, [Fla.Stat. (1985) ]” relative to custody of the

Bill v. Bill

478 So. 2d 93, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16535, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2464

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1985 | Docket: 64615342

Published

circumstances of each party and the nature of the case. § 61.13(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). The determination of the

McCaskill v. McCaskill

477 So. 2d 36, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2376, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16340

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 1985 | Docket: 64614801

Published

SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur. . Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1983) has to do with child

Young v. Young

465 So. 2d 652, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 782, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13186

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 1985 | Docket: 64610722

Published

of equity to provide support for their child. § 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1983). The record before us contains

Langer v. Langer

463 So. 2d 265

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1985 | Docket: 448932

Published

determination of custody and visitation rights, § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1981); Culpepper v. Culpepper, 408

Quirino v. Quirino

459 So. 2d 1183, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2594, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16628

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 1984 | Docket: 64608514

Published

affirm. Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So.2d 25 (Fla.1957); § 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1983). Affirmed.

Ballah v. Poole

453 So. 2d 924, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1738, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 1984 | Docket: 64606243

Published

The trial judge expressed his belief that section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1983), applied to

Frisard v. Frisard

453 So. 2d 1150, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14586

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 1984 | Docket: 64606297

Published

child custody/shared responsibility cases. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: (3) For

Sherrod v. Sherrod

448 So. 2d 1234, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13121

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 1984 | Docket: 64604341

Published

custody without regard to the age of the child. Section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1983). After considering

Marriage of Mathers v. Mathers

443 So. 2d 1069, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11404

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1984 | Docket: 64602161

Published

shared parental responsibility pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1982), upon the authority

Pralle v. Pralle

444 So. 2d 455, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25423

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1983 | Docket: 64602391

Published

children be shared between the parents pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). At the final

Powell v. Powell

433 So. 2d 1374, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19851

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 1983 | Docket: 64598080

Published

Section 90.204(3), Florida Statutes (1981) and Section 61.13(1), Florida Statutes (1981). We agree and reverse

Briner v. Briner

425 So. 2d 211, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18771

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 1983 | Docket: 64594672

Published

Duncan, at 952; Lambert, at 487; also see Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, which provides that a court

Arnold v. Miller

404 So. 2d 1166, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21382

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 1981 | Docket: 64585590

Published

extinguished by subsequent marriage. Florida Statutes, Section 61.13. In the instant case, uncontroverted testimony

Davis v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

403 So. 2d 584, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21055

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 1981 | Docket: 64585021

Published

mother’s financial ability considered pursuant to Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1979). We find that Section

Green v. Green

390 So. 2d 761

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1980 | Docket: 64578995

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 61.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1978); Osteryoung v. Leibowitz, 371 So.2d 1068

Ashleman v. Ashleman

381 So. 2d 364, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15809

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1980 | Docket: 64575103

Published

children, based upon the criteria set forth in Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1977). Nor can we nor

Stephens v. Stephens

378 So. 2d 1311, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15606

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 1980 | Docket: 64573806

Published

Hender, 198 So.2d 348, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); § 61.13(4), Fla.Stat. (1977).

Claughton v. Claughton

361 So. 2d 752, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16480

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1978 | Docket: 64565679

Published

child support, as authorized by Subsection 4 of Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1975). That is so because

Linda v. Linda

352 So. 2d 1208, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16938

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1977 | Docket: 64561792

Published

be awarded such spouse.” (Emphasis added.) Section 61.13(f), Florida Statutes (1975), provides, inter

O'Connor v. O'Connor

347 So. 2d 438, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16119

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1977 | Docket: 64559256

Published

evidence. Therefore, no error appears. See Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1975). Cf. Stamm v. Stamm

Guilbeau v. Dubberly

337 So. 2d 839, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 1976 | Docket: 64555221

Published

1966). Contrast ch. 71-241, § 15, Fla. Laws, § 61.13(1), F.S.1975; Siegel v. Zimmerman, 319 So.2d 187

Johnson v. Johnson

293 So. 2d 770, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7671

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 1974 | Docket: 64538681

Published

child of the parties to the husband pursuant to Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We have considered

Lippincott v. Lippincott

287 So. 2d 144, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6159

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1973 | Docket: 64536131

Published

determination of custody of the minor children. Fla.Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A. Further, in making this determination

Cardillo v. Cardillo

269 So. 2d 773, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5951

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 1972 | Docket: 64528963

Published

visitation rights of minor children of the parties in § 61.13(2) wherein it is stated: “Upon considering all

Cheves v. Cheves

269 So. 2d 414

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1972 | Docket: 64528829

Published

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur. . Fla.Stat. § 61.13(1) (1971), F.S.A. . Fla.Stat. § 61.14(1) (1971)

Cooper v. Cooper

260 So. 2d 272, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6962

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1972 | Docket: 64525189

Published

permanent custody subject to modification pursuant to § 61.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We affirm the action of the

Walborsky v. Walborsky

258 So. 2d 304, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7217

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1972 | Docket: 64524493

Published

and maintenance of children of the marriage (Section 61.13, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.), and upon a change of circumstances

Longo v. Longo

245 So. 2d 658, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6922

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 1971 | Docket: 64519429

Published

the nature of the case is equitable.” Fla.Stat. § 61.13 (1969), F.S.A. That statute tells us why our hunch

Green v. Green

230 So. 2d 492, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 7019

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1970 | Docket: 64512855

Published

2d 907; James v. James, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 534; § 61.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; 17 Fla.Jur., Infants, § 7.