Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...port. [2] Geographic Relocation Restriction The father argues that the court erred by imposing a specific geographic relocation restriction upon the parties because no pleading sought that relief and because the trial court mistakenly concluded that section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2007), ("the relocation statute") did not apply....

...n appeal). The constitutionality of the relocation statute appears to be a question of first impression in the State of Florida. We emphasize, however, that this opinion does not address the significantly amended version of the relocation statute in section 61.13001 but applies only to the version of the statute in section 61.13(2)(d)....

...Based on this record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Mother's request to relocate with the children to Texas. Affirmed. WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The legislature significantly amended the parental relocation statute and moved it to section 61.13001, effective October 1, 2006....

...See Ch.2006-245, §§ 2, 4, at 2017-22, Laws of Fla. The parties did not mention the new statute in their briefs, and the trial court's orders were entered prior to the amendment, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(d). Thus, this opinion does not address section 61.13001.

...eaningful relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent or other person; and the likelihood of compliance with the substitute arrangements by the relocating parent or other person once he or she is out of the jurisdiction of the court. § 61.13001(7)(c), Fla....

...All issues were tried together and determined under the umbrella of the same final judgment for dissolution of marriage. [4] We note that the requirements provided for by section 61.13(2)(d) were deleted and different requirements were implemented in the newly added section 61.13001, effective October 1, 2006....

...See ch.2006-245, § 2, Laws of Fla. However, the old requirements of section 61.13(2)(d) apply to the present case because the trial was held on January 17, 2006, and the final judgment for dissolution was rendered on April 19, 2006, prior to the statutory change. See § 61.13001(11)(b), Fla....

...The Husband petitioned this Court for discretionary review of the Second District’s decision in Arthur . His petition was based on express and direct conflict with the First District’s decisions in Sylvester, Janousek, and Martinez . We granted review to resolve this conflict. ANALYSIS Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), titled “Parental relocation with a child,” establishes the procedures involved in the relocation of a child, whether relocation is sought after agreement between the parties or alternatively contested by one party....

...r against a request to relocate with the child when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelo-cating parent or other person.” § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). Instead, section 61.13001(8) states: The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proof if an objection is filed and must then initiate a proceeding seeking court permission for relocation....

...relocation is not in the best interest of the child. In addition to the burden that the parties must meet, the statute outlines several factors a trial court must consider before reaching a decision on a parent’s request for permanent relocation. Section 61.13001(7) provides that the court shall evaluate: (a) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate with the child and with the nonrelocating parent, other perso...

...Such a “prospective-based” analysis is unsound. Indeed, a trial court is not equipped with a “crystal ball” that enables it to prophetically determine whether future relocation is in the best interests of a child. Any one of the various factors outlined in section 61.13001(7) that the trial court is required to consider, such as the financial stability of a parent or the suitability of the new location for the child, could change within the extended time period given by the court before relocation....

...We find the most telling phrase of the order to be the court’s statement that “[b]ut for the Court’s concern for the Husband’s ability to bond with his son, the Wife’s relocation would have been granted without further delay.” In its consideration of subsection (b) of section 61.13001(7), the court found that “[r]equiring the Wife to wait until the child turns three (3) years old allows the Husband and child the time necessary to form a lasting bond with each other.” Thus, although the court may have favored r...

...Botterbusch, 851 So.2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(citing Dorta-Duque v. Dorta-Duque, 791 So.2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). In reviewing the trial court's order, we must determine if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's findings under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...hat are appropriate for the trial judge." Id. (citing Flint v. Fortson, 744 So.2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). *734 Florida law does not recognize a presumption in favor of or against a primary residential parent seeking to relocate a child. See § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). Instead, in making a determination as to whether the primary residential parent may relocate with a child, section 61.13001(7) requires a trial court to consider the following factors: (a) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent proposing to relocate with the child and with the nonrelocating par...

...the mother accepted a job offer with the United States Customs Department, and would earn more money and work fewer hours in her new position). Because there was no substantial competent evidence to support relocation under the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7), we find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Mother's petition for relocation....

...The former wife's parents and support structure are in Colorado. The evidence as chronicled in the Final Judgment reflects that, support structure in place, the former wife has a greater chance of bettering herself economically and educationally in Colorado for the support of the minor child in the future. See § 61.13001(7)(e), Fla....

...tute as section 11(a) mandates that this version apply "[t]o orders entered before October 1, 2006, if the existing order defining custody, primary residence, or visitation of or with the child does not expressly govern relocation of the child." See § 61.13001(11)(a)(1), Fla....

...turned three years old, which would occur twenty months from the date of the judgment. Id. at 455. The supreme court concluded that the best interest determination must be made at the time of the final hearing, i.e. “present-based” analysis. 54 So. 3d at 459. Section 61.13001(e), Florida Statutes (2012) defines “Relocation” as “a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing ....

...Neither parent sought to move from his or her principal place of residence, and, under the ordered parenting plan, neither parent would be changing his or her residence. The parenting plan in the amended final judgment does not involve “relocation,” as defined in section 61.13001(e), but rather orders that the father become the primary residential parent once the child begins kindergarten....

...This Court reviews relocation determinations for abuse of discretion; however, ' the question of whether the trial court properly applied the relocation statute is a matter of law, reviewed de novo. Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So.3d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Here, Mr. Milton relies on section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and Raulerson , to assert that because Mrs. Milton did not comply with section 61.13001, the trial court erred in permitting the child’s relocation, even if temporary. He is correct. Section 61.13001(3)(a) unambiguously requires that, absent agreement of both parents, a parent wishing to relocate file a petition and the petition be served on the other parent. § 61.13001(3), Fla. Stat. Only where the relocating parent files a proper petition may the court order temporary relocation pending final determination. § 61.13001(6)(b)....

...Milton does not contest that she and the child relocated to New York. Accordingly, she is subject “to contempt and other proceedings to compel the return of the child”; additionally, the court may grant other relief, including restraining relocation or ordering the child’s return. § 61.13001(3)(e), (6)(a), Fla....

....3d at 200 (explaining that on remand the trial court need not consider “whether [it] would have permitted the relocation in the first place but whether the actual relocation was in the child’s best interests pursuant to the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7)”)....

...This form or a similar form should be used in the development of a Parenting Plan. If the case involves supervised time-sharing, the Safety Focused Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(b) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then a Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...her order of the court. Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...e providing protection for the child(ren). If safety or supervised time-sharing is not a concern, Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(a) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...morning hours to pick him up, appearing to be drunk. Following trial,- the trial court issued its final judgment. With respect to the wife’s petition for relocation, the trial court evaluated the evidence based on the statutory factors provided in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...Botterbusch v. Botterbusch, 851 So.2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In this regard, an appellate court reviews whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact, but does not engage in reweighing the evidence. Id. Section 61.13001(8), Florida Statutes (2016), governs the burden of proof for rulings on relocation and provides as follows: (8) BURDEN OF PROOF.—The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. If that burden of proof is met, the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent or other person to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...cation based on events that had not yet occurred in hopes that the husband could change his ways. However, this was error. The husband could only satisfy his burden of proof by actually producing evidence sufficient to meet the standard set forth in section 61.13001(8), and not merely by a promise to....

...petitions for relocation, stating: Indeed, a trial court 'is not equipped with a “crystal ball” that enables it to prophetically determine whether future relocation is in the best interests of a child. Any one of the various factors outlined in section 61.13001(7) that, the trial court is required to consider, such as the financial stability of a parent or the suitability of the new location for the child, could change within the extended time period given by the court before relocation....

...NOTES [1] There is no evidence that Velazquez actually tried to relocate. The record is that she wanted to relocate to a more affordable community where she had family support and that she sought court permission to do so. There is nothing wrong in this. See § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006) (expressly stating that "[n]o presumption shall arise in favor or against a request to relocate with the child when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child"); § 61.13001(7)(e) Fla....

...locate may have been sufficient to permit relocation had the original custody arrangement been different, they are insufficient to change the current joint rotating custody award to shared responsibility with a primary residential custodian. [5] See § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...mes per week until the parties' child reached the age of five, at which time visitation is to be revisited. Following the divorce, the Mother married the regional director of a biotechnology company located in Atlanta, Georgia and in accordance with section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes sought permission to relocate with the parties' son. See § 61.13001, Fla....

...In light of our reversal of the modification award, we also reverse denial of the relocation request to permit the trial court to measure just the relocation request (as opposed to both the relocation request and the motion to modify custody) against the criteria set out in section 61.13001(7)....

...of or against a request to relocate with the child when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person. § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added); see Norris v. Heckerman, 972 So.2d 1098, 1098-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). There are two reasons for this reminder and our emphasis on this portion of section 61.13001....

...d turns five, an event only months from now. We also reverse the relocation denial because on the limited record before us [2] it appears that contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the Mother met her initial burden of proof regarding relocation. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...prepared a report in this matter, that "the stress and disruptiveness on a child caused by divorce and long distance separation is difficult to predict and difficult to quantify," as supporting the conclusion that the Father carried his burden. See § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...sband would have visitation. On appeal, the former husband seeks reversal of the final judgment on the ground that the trial court reached its decision on the former wife's request to relocate without properly evaluating all the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2007). Section 61.13001(7) sets forth a lengthy list of factors a trial court must evaluate in reaching a decision regarding a proposed temporary or permanent relocation. Pertinent to this case, section 61.13001(7)(c) states that the court must consider: The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent or other person and the child through substitute arrangements that take into consideration the logistics of co...

...that the provision of the final judgment granting relocation must be reversed. We also agree with the former husband that the trial court appears to have applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating the former wife's request to relocate. Under section 61.13001(7), there is no presumption in favor of or against relocation. The burden of proof is on the parent seeking to relocate to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. § 61.13001(8)....

County when he filed the instant petition under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017), to allow him and

...If the parties have reached an agreement, the Parenting Plan should be signed by both parties. If you have not reached an agreement, a proposed Parenting Plan may be filed. If this case involves a request for relocation of a minor child, pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, a proposed Parenting Plan must be attached....

...• Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form, 12.995(a) or (b). If the parties have reached an agreement, a signed and notarized Parenting Plan should be attached. If you have not reached an agreement, a proposed Parenting Plan may be filed. If this involves relocation of minor child(ren) pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, a Parenting Plan must be attached....

...If the parties have reached an agreement, the Parenting Plan should be signed by both parties. If you have not reached an agreement, a proposed Parenting Plan may be filed. If this case involves a request for relocation of a minor child, pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, a proposed Parenting Plan must be attached....

...• Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form, 12.995(a) or (b). If the parties have reached an agreement, a signed and notarized Parenting Plan should be attached. If you have not reached an agreement, a proposed Parenting Plan may be filed. If this involves relocation of minor child(ren) pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, a Parenting Plan must be attached....

...her order of the court. Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

CONNER, J. Amie Essex (“the mother”) seeks review of an order directing her to return the parties’ minor daughter to Palm Beach County pending a relocation hearing in conformity with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...prior to the father filing paternity proceedings. She further contends the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the relocation statute applied. Legal Analysis The standard of review for orders entered regarding section 61.13001, the relocation statute pertaining to time sharing of children, is abuse of discretion....

...Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980)). The findings of the trial court in support of its rulings will be upheld on appeal if there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings. Open Permit Servs., of Fla., Inc. v. Curtiss, 15 So.3d 822, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Section 61.13001 was amended effective October 1, 2009....

...The change of location must be at least 50 miles from that residence, and for at least 60 consecutive days not including a temporary absence from the principal residence for purposes of vacation, education, or the provision of health care for the child. § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The 2009 amendment to the statute also no longer provided for a “Notice of Intent to Relocate,” and instead, required a “petition to relocate.” § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...of the statute to be significant for our analysis: (11) Applicability.— (a) This section applies: [[Image here]] *448 2.' To an order, whether temporary or permanent, regarding the parenting plan, custody, primary residence, time-sharing, or access to the child entered on or after October 1, 2009. [[Image here]] § 61.13001(11)(a)(2), Fla....

...The order under review states, “[t]he Mother has since removed the minor child from Palm Beach County, Florida without prior court authority.” (emphasis added). It is clear the trial judge premised her ruling upon her conclusion that the mother had violated section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, by relocating the child to Louisiana....

...The trial court awarded the father majority time-sharing in Pennsylvania after relying on the factors set forth in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. Id. The mother argued that the trial court should have relied on the relocation factors set forth in section 61.13001(7); the father asserted that section 61.13001 did not apply, as he already lived in Pennsylvania. The Second District noted that prior to October 1, 2009, relocation under section 61.13001 was defined as a change in the child’s principal residence; after October 1, 2009, relocation was defined as a change in the parent’s principal residence....

...As the mother’s petition for majority time-sharing was filed after October 1, 2009, the relocation statute did not apply, because the father was not seeking a change of his primary residence. Id. at 72 . It appears from the wording of the order under review that the trial court determined that section 61.13001 had been violated by the mother relocating the child’s residence to Louisiana....

...By references to “Notice to Relocate,” it also appears the trial court was contemplating the earlier version of the statute. After October 1, 2009, the critical inquiry, as to the applicability of the relocation statute, is whether the mother relocated her principal residence. Based on section 61.13001(l)(e) and A.F., the mother is correct in arguing that if she had already moved to Louisiana prior to the father’s filing of the petition to determine paternity or any order establishing or modifying time-sharing, then she is not subject to the relocation statute....

...For the reasons stated, we reverse the order directing the return of the child and remand the case for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to whether the relocation statute applies and whether the parties agreed on a temporary relocation of the child to Louisiana. 4 See § 61.13001(2), Fla....

...ocation statute. While the time-sharing schedule largely met the requirements of section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), it did not include a school designation, and the marital settlement agreement does not expressly prohibit a move. Further, section 61.13001(e) defines “Relocation” as “a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing....

...the straight-line or “as the crow flies” measure. Here, the parties agree that the mother moved forty-nine miles “as the crow flies,” using the straight-line test. Hence, the mother was not required to file a petition to relocate pursuant to section 61.13001 before she relocated to a different county forty-nine miles away....

...On the contrary, the court did have such authority pursuant to section 61.516(2), Florida Statutes (2007), of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The court, however, issued an alternate ruling, which we affirm, approving the former wife's relocation pursuant to the factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006). Under this provision, there is no presumption in favor of or *1099 against relocation. The burden of proof is on the parent wishing to relocate to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interests of the children. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...Based upon the limited evidence before it, the trial court properly exercised its discretion by granting the mother's request to relocate with the children. AFFIRMED. WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. POLSTON, J., dissents with opinion. POLSTON, J., dissenting. Although the trial court did not believe section 61.13001 applied, it ruled in the alternative that relocation was appropriate pursuant to that statute....

...substantial evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion) (citing Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975)). When reaching a decision regarding a proposed temporary or permanent relocation, the court is required to consider the factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7), subsections (a) through (k). In Florida, there is no presumption in favor of, or against, relocation. § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). The burden of proof is on the parent wishing to relocate to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...idence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. Id. The former wife did not meet her initial burden of proof supporting relocation. Here, it is apparent that the trial court mentioned almost all of the listed factors of section 61.13001....

...supported by competent, substantial evidence, noting that "[a]ny evidence regarding the benefits of relocation related to the Mother and her new husband, rather than the child"). *1100 As noted by the trial court, evidence regarding a number of the section 61.13001 factors was not introduced during the hearing. For example, the trial court notes: "The age and developmental stage of the children, their needs and the likely impact of the relocation and its impact on the children's physical, educational and emotional development, [see § 61.13001(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006)], was not addressed to any extent by the parties at the hearing. " Further, as to the feasibility of maintaining the relationship between the non-relocating father and the children through substitute arrangements, See § 61.13001(7)(c), the court noted: The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the children through substitute arrangements to take into consideration the logistics of contact, access, visitation and time sha...

...e significantly altered former husband's visitation). The trial court also noted that it could not tell "whether or not the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the parent or other person seeking relocation." See 61.13001(7)(g), Fla....

to grant or deny relocation of a parent. See § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2012). That section requires

...Despite these admissions and the express limitation on the testimony, the Mother verbally requested permission to relocate. The Father argued that temporary permission to relocate would be improper because the Mother had not complied with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...rties generally do not strictly comply with that statutory provision.” Ultimately, the trial court granted the Mother temporary permission to relocate, finding, among other things, that (1) she “substantially complied” with the requirements of section 61.13001, and *489 that (2) there was “a likelihood that the relocation of the Mother and minor child would be granted” in a final hearing....

...1st DCA 1996)). However, issues involving the interpretation of a statute are reviewed de novo. B.Y. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004). Our decision in the instant case turns on whether the trial court properly applied section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...Courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless. Mendenhall v. State, 48 So.3d 740, 748 (Fla.2010) (quoting Velez v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Police Dep’t, 934 So.2d 1162, 1164-65 (Fla.2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted)). Section 61.13001 delineates the requirements a primary residential parent must follow before relocating with a minor child who is the subject of an order determining the child’s time-sharing, residential care, kinship, or custody. Unless there is a valid agreement to the child’s relocation under section 61.13001(2), the primary residential parent must file a petition to relocate and receive permission from the circuit court to relocate. See § 61.13001(3). This petition must be filed under oath, contain seven specific items of information, and be served on every other person entitled to access or time-sharing with the child. § 61.13001(3). There are two potential consequences to relocating a child in derogation of these requirements: (1) the party in violation is “subject[ ] ... to contempt and other proceedings to compel return of the child,” § 61.13001(3)(e); and (2) “[t]he court may ... order the return of the child ... or order other appropriate remedial relief,” § 61.13001(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). See also § 61.13001(6)(a)2 (further providing that if the trial court finds “[t]hat the child has been relocated without a written agreement of the parties or without court approval,” the court may also “order the return of the child” or “order other appropriate remedial relief”)....

...From an examination of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, that there is a likelihood that on final hearing the court will approve the relocation of the child, which findings must be supported by the same factual basis as would be necessary to support approving the relocation in a final judgment. § 61.13001(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). In connection with the second finding, the court is required to consider the factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7)(a)-(k). See Conners v. Mullins, 27 So.3d 199, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that the section 61.13001(7) factors reveal whether relocation is in the child’s best interest). The parent wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...location is not in the child’s best interest. Id. In this case, the trial court erred in determining that the Mother’s hand-delivery to the Father of her “Notice of Intent to Relocate With Child” was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 61.13001(3). As noted above, section 61.13001(6)(b)l provides that the trial court “may grant a temporary order permitting the relocation of the child pending final hearing” if the court finds that “the petition to relocate was properly filed and is otherwise in compliance with subsection (3).” See also § 61.13001(6)(b)2 (identifying the other prerequisite to granting a temporary order permitting relocation). The Mother’s efforts in this .case were inadequate because she failed to comply with the threshold requirement of properly filing a sworn petition with the trial court. See § 61.13001(6)(b)l....

...transcript. Affirmed. WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] One of the parties' children has since reached the age of majority. [2] The requirements of section 61.13(2)(d) were later substituted with different requirements by the newly added section 61.13001(7). However, the new section does not apply to the final judgment in this case, which was rendered prior to October 1, 2006. See § 61.13001(11), Fla....

...s with the children. Then the mother remarried, and her new husband's job was relocated to Huntsville, Alabama. The mother petitioned the court to allow her to move there with the children, but the trial court denied relief, citing to the factors in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006). We affirm the order of the circuit court denying the former wife's petition to relocate to Alabama. Substantial competent evidence supports the trial court's findings concerning the statutory factors contained in section 61.13001(7)....

...See Botterbusch v. Botterbusch, 851 So.2d 903, 904-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We also find no error in the trial court's questioning of the former wife. See § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The court's questions pertained to considerations required by section 61.13001(7)....

...(the Mother) appeals a final judgment establishing R.P.B.’s (the Father) paternity of the minor child, ordering shared parental responsibility, and awarding the Father majority time-sharing in Pennsylvania. We affirm, but write to explain our holding that the version of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, effective until September 30, 2009, does not apply....

...y with majority time-sharing in Pennsylvania. The Mother argues that the trial court could not award shared parental responsibility to the Father in Pennsylvania without considering and making factual findings for the relocation factors set forth in section 61.13001(7)(a)-(k). She cites subsection 61.13001(11)(a)(2), which provides that the relocation statute applies where there is “an order, whether temporary or *72 permanent, regarding the parenting plan, custody, primary residence, time-sharing, or access to the child entered on or after October 1, 2009.” The February 2010 order, entered on the basis of the parties’ agreement, was a temporary order regarding time-sharing or visitation. The Father responds that section 61.13001 did not apply because he was not relocating; he already resided in Pennsylvania....

...efinition of relocation excluded the situation faced by the Mother and Father from the requirements of the relocation statute. Thus, the court relied on the considerations of section 61.13(3)(a)-(t) in making its time-sharing determination. In 2009, section 61.13001 existed in two slightly different versions at the times relevant here. Until September 30, 2009, a month before the mother filed her petition, section 61.13001(1)(e) defined “relocation” as a change in the location of the child’s principal residence....

...Neither parent was changing his or her place of residence; rather, each sought to change the primary residence of one of the children. Id. Similarly here, the father is not changing his own residence, but seeking to change the child’s principal residence. Thus, under that version of section 61.13001, the relocation statute would have applied to the facts in this case....

...residence to father’s existing home in Maryland). However, the legislature amended the definition of “relocation” to a change in the location of a parent’s principal residence, effective October 1, 2009. See ch. 2009-180, § 4, Laws of Fla.; § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2009). It also changed “notice ... of a proposed relocation of the child’s residence” in the earlier 2009 version to “petition to relocate.” See ch. 2009-180, § 4, Laws of Fla.; § 61.13001(3). The newer version of the statute applies because the Mother filed her petition on November 10, 2009. The newer version still refers to “relocation of a/the child,” § 61.13001(2)(a); (3)(e), (3)(e)(l), (3)(e)(4); (4); (6)(a), (6)(a)(2), (6)(a)(3); (6)(b), (6)(b)(2); and (6)(d), but the amended definition of “relocation”— triggering application of the relocation statute where a parent proposes a change in...

...Mata appeals an order of the trial court that granted appellee Beth A. Mata’s emergency motion to permit the temporary relocation of the parties’ minor child to North Carolina. Because the court failed to comply with requirements relevant to the temporary relocation of minor children under section 61.13001(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), we reverse....

...nal hearing on relocation to November 18, 2011. An abuse of discretion standard governs an appellate court’s review of the trial court’s determination of the relocation of minor children. See Manyari v. Manyari, 958 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Section 61.13001(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), establishes the procedures that must be followed in matters that involve the temporary relocation of a child. Section 61.13001(6)(b) states: (b) The court may grant a temporary order permitting the relocation of the child pending final hearing, if the court finds: *343 [[Image here]] 2....

...final judgment. The father argues that the court failed to comply with these statutory requirements when it granted the mother’s emergency motion for temporary relocation. Here, it is apparent that the court did not consider the factors listed in section 61.13001(6)(b)(2) before it granted the mother’s emergency motion for temporary relocation....

...st be “supported by the same factual basis as would be necessary to support approving the relocation in a final judgment.” Indeed, the court noted at the hearing on the mother’s emergency motion that it did not consider the factors outlined in section 61.13001 because it had not taken any evidence. This constituted error. Notwithstanding the court’s error as a matter of law when it misapplied the correct legal standard set forth in section 61.13001, see Canakaris v....

...The court’s decision to relocate was thus unreasonable. See Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So.3d 487, 490-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that the mother’s hand-delivery to the father of her notice of intent to relocate with the parties’ minor child, without complying with the filing requirements of section 61.13001(3), constituted an abuse of discretion)....

...We decline to address, as either merit-less or unsupported, the arguments the mother raises. Thus, we conclude that the court abused its discretion when it granted the mother’s emergency motion to permit the temporary relocation of the parties’ minor child without adhering to the requirements of section 61.13001. We therefore reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing from which the court can determine the necessary findings required by section 61.13001....

...sidential parent,” used in the temporary relief order, "have no meaning whatsoever other than to identify [the time sharing] schedule each party will follow.” . The wife's argument that the trial court misapplied the parental relocation statute, section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, is misplaced....

...We also disagree with Appellant's contention that the trial court reversibly erred in denying her petition for relocation. An order on a petition for relocation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the appellate court considers whether competent, substantial evidence supports the court's findings under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. Muller v. Muller , 964 So.2d 732 , 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). While there is no presumption in favor of or against allowing relocation, the party seeking to relocate carries the burden to prove the move is in the child's best interest. See § 61.13001(7) - (8), Fla....

...mstances had occurred. Id. at 367 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original). Here, under the final judgment of dissolution, the parties were prohibited from moving more than fifty miles from their present residence without following the provisions of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. While Appellant did notify Appellee of her intention to move a month before the relocation, she did not secure his written consent or file a formal petition, as required. § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...Indeed, these parties already reside at a distance in excess of these provisions. We therefore direct the trial court to strike this provision from the final judgment on remand. Both parties have acknowledged that the judgment will now be controlled by the provisions of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...As to the trial court's denial of Former Wife's petition for relocation, we find that the trial court did not properly consider the best interest factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2015), or the factors regarding relocation set forth in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2015)....

...With respect to the findings the trial court did make, the record reveals those findings to be unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. The undisputed evidence presented should have resulted in the granting of Former Wife's petition for relocation. Section 61.13001(7) expressly states that no "presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child" arises simply because a "move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and timesharing with the nonrelocating parent." See § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...741.28 or which meets the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d) by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation. (k) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13. Id. § 61.13001(7)(a)-(k)....

...he court to consider when modifying a timesharing agreement. Id. § 61.13(3)(a)-(t). As the parent seeking relocation, Former Wife has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. Id. § 61.13001(8)....

...rent husband's change of employment. Former Wife noticed her motion for relocation for a hearing prior to moving, and Former Husband responded by filing a motion asking the court, in part, to strike Former Wife's relocation request as improper under section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes....

...Accordingly, the basis for the trial court's decision to deny Former Wife's petition for relocation, that Former Wife would not cooperate in allowing liberal and frequent visitation, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Moreover, applying the relocation criteria set forth in section 61.13001(7) and the best interest factors set forth in section 61.13(3) to the undisputed facts clearly reveals that Former Wife met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. For example, as to section 61.13001(7)(a) and section 61.13(3)(d), it is undisputed that Former Wife had been the primary caregiver for the child since his birth, and there was no evidence that the child was not thriving in her care....

...and adopted by the court, and that she is more than reasonable when changes are requested, often accommodating requests for more visitation despite Former Husband's hostile attitude toward her. § 61.13(a), (c), Fla. Stat. (2015). In addition, under section 61.13001(7)(f)-(h), the trial court recognized that relocation was a financial necessity for Former Wife and her family and that they otherwise would not be able to maintain health insurance for their blended family, including the child who is the subject of the parties' litigation. Further, if allowed to relocate, the child would attend one of the top schools in South Florida where Former Wife works as a teaching assistant. Id. § 61.13001(7)(b), (e)....

...the parties' confrontational communications have diminished, and the child's exposure to Former Husband's routine displays of hostility toward her prior to her relocation have been eliminated, providing the child a more stable environment. Regarding section 61.13001(7)(c), the record confirms that both parties are capable of timesharing despite the distance between them and *840 that both parties are capable of, and had been successfully complying with, substitute timesharing arrangements betwee...

...location and the trial, a six-month period of equal timesharing that the parties facilitated without incident. In sum, Former Wife met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. Id. § 61.13001(7)(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k). Because Former Wife met her burden of proof, the burden then shifted to Former Husband to show by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is not in the best interest of the child. Id. § 61.13001(8)....

...to a rehabilitative plan accepted by the court, so that he or she may better support himself or herself after dissolution of marriage. Relocation — a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person in accordance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...e child.”). We agree with the father’s argument. We will analyze the controlling statute before turning to the reasons for our decision. Analysis The mother filed her petition for relocation pursuant to section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes (2014), which states, in pertinent part: Unless an agreement has been entered ....

...The order may be issued in an expedited manner without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. If a response is timely filed, the parent or other person may not relocate, and must proceed to a temporary hearing or trial and obtain court permission to relocate. § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...l relocation statute). Instead, the proper standard for evaluating the proposed substitute visitation is whether the substitute visitation is "sufficient to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent." § 61.13001(7)(c), Fla....

...We note that this is not a relocation case in the strict sense because there was no court order in place when the Mother left Sarasota and moved to the Seattle area with the children. Nevertheless, the trial court must consider the relocation factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7) as part of its evaluation of "all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child" as required by section 61.13(3)....

...ssary to revisit the issues of child support and visitation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The trial court entered the final judgment on December 18, 2007. Therefore, section 61.13001, the current version of the parental relocation statute, applies to the determination of the relocation issue. See § 61.13001(11)(a)(2).

...On November 80, 2010, the Mother filed a “notice of intent to relocate with children,” proposing that the youngest child join the Mother and the other three minor children at their home in North Carolina. The notice included specifics regarding the proposed relocation, pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2010), as well as a detailed parenting plan....

...r siblings in North Carolina;” and the Father later returned the children to North Carolina, albeit to the home of a relative other than the Mother, after the Florida court had granted the Father sole parental responsibility and denied relocation. Section 61.13001(8)(e), Florida Statutes, expressly provides that a parent’s relocation of a minor child without complying with the statute “may be taken into account” by the court in considering a petition for modification or relocation....

...violation of an injunction). Punishment of the Mother for violation of a court order may affect, but does not conclude, the inquiry regarding the trial court’s assessment of the “best interests of the child” for purposes of sections 61.13 and 61.13001....

...On remand, should the Mother elect to continue the prosecution of her relocation petition, the Mother will have an opportunity to file responsive pleadings alleging the unusual and significant circumstances that have occurred since the modification case began. Section 61.13001(3)(e)l provides that the Mother’s relocation of the youngest child in violation of the Florida court’s order may be considered as “a factor” in determining the Mother’s petition, but not the only factor....

...ould differ on whether the request for relocation should have been granted. But we are bound to follow the mixed standard of review which applies to this case. “[T]he question of whether the trial court properly applied the relocation statute [section 61.13001, Florida Statutes] is a matter of law, reviewed de novo.” Milton v....

...“A presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child does not arise if a parent or other person seeks to relocate and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person.” § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...matter of law. The circuit court’s final judgment set forth its detailed findings of fact as to each factor used to determine the best interests of the child under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2017), and to determine a contested relocation under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2017). The circuit court did not make any presumption in favor of or against the former husband’s request for relocation. Further, competent substantial evidence supports the circuit court’s findings of fact. Competent substantial evidence also supports the circuit court’s ultimate decisions, under section 61.13001(8), Florida Statutes (2017), that the former husband met his initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interests of the child, and that the former wife did not meet her resulting burd...

...alimony. The final order applying section 61.08 must be based upon "a present-based analysis" rather than a deferral to wait and see how the parties' situations work out. See Arthur v. Arthur, ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 114532 (Fla. 2010) (applying § 61.13001, Fla....

...ition to relocate, which she labeled as an amended supplemental petition. It was served on the father’s counsel through Florida’s e-filing system at counsel’s primary e-portal email address. When no objection was filed as required by section 61.13001(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2016), the mother obtained an expedited order allowing relocation....

...5th DCA 2014) (“Every pleading and paper filed in any court proceeding must be served on each party or their counsel . . . . This requirement is to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.” (citing Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516)); Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 1 Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, provides that if a party does not respond by objecting to a relocation petition within twenty days of service, “it is presumed that the relocation is in the best interest of the child and that the relocation shou...

...be allowed, and the court shall, absent good cause, enter an order specifying that the order is entered as a result of the failure to respond . . . . The order may be issued in an expedited manner without the necessity for an evidentiary hearing.” § 61.13001(3)(a)–(d), Fla....

...First, Former Husband asked that a specific time- sharing schedule be implemented to ensure his continuing contact with the youngest child. Second, he asked that Former Wife be required to comply with the relocation 2 provisions of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2013), if she attempted to move back to South Carolina with the minor child....

...e of the trips or detailed itineraries. As a result, the Father moved to hold the Mother in contempt, and the Mother moved to hold the Father in contempt for having moved to Hallandale Beach without first filing a petition to relocate pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2011)....

...contempt powers if and when it deems it necessary to address any future violations of the parties' time-sharing agreement. Next, the Father argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to file a petition to relocate pursuant to section 61.13001 when he moved from Sarasota to Hallandale Beach because he is not the "primary residential parent" of the children. Because this is an issue of statutory interpretation, this court reviews the trial court's decision de novo....

...2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2004). When Chapter 61 was overhauled in 2008, the legislature shied away from certain terms, in particular the terms "primary residential parent" and "nonresidential parent." The emphasis shifted from such terminology to "time-sharing parent"; for example, section 61.13001(3) holds that "a parent or other person seeking relocation must file a petition to relocate and serve it upon the other parent, and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child." Further, "relocation" is defined by section 61.13001(1)(e) as "a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time of filing t...

...-3- reference to the relocating parent being the primary residential parent, the trial court ruled that the Father was required to file a petition to relocate before moving. Even though the title of section 61.13001 should be considered along with the statutory text, see State v....

...519, 528-29 (1947) (holding that "the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text"). And the text in multiple instances indicates that even a noncustodial parent with visitation rights would have to file a petition to relocate. See § 61.13001(1)(d) (defining "parent" as "any person . . . who is entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child"); § 61.13001(1)(e) (defining "relocation" as "a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent . . . from his or her principal place of residence"); see also § 61.13001(3) ("[A] parent or other person seeking relocation must file a petition to relocate and serve it upon the other parent . . . ."); § 61.13001(2)(a) ("If the parents and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child agree to the relocation of the child, they may satisfy the requirements of this section by signing a written agreement ....

...n the best interests of the minor child may be made. For these reasons, we respectfully disagree with our sister court's interpretation set forth in Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So. 3d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (evaluating the legislative intent of section 61.13001 and determining that the section was intended to only "delineate[] the requirements a primary residential parent must follow before relocating with a minor child who is the subject of an order determining the child's time-sharing, residential care, kinship, or custody" (emphasis added)). Based on our contextual analysis, we are compelled to give effect to the clear legislative intent behind section 61.13001....

...to relocate. We also affirm the trial court's decision not to hold the Father in contempt for failing to first follow the statute before relocating for the same reasons we upheld the court's denial of the Mother's contempt petition. See also § 61.13001(3)(e) ("Relocating -5- the child without complying with the requirements of this subsection subjects the party in violation to contempt ....

...OLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH DEPENDENT OR MINOR CHILD(REN) AND RELOCATION (03/15) When should this form be used? This form should be used when a husband or wife is filing for dissolution of marriage, there are dependent or minor children and pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes: 1....

...OR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND/OR RETURN OF CHILD(REN) (03/15) When should this form be used? You may use this form to ask the court to enforce a prior court order, final judgment or to request the return of a children) who has been relocated in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...What should I do next? To initiate a civil contempt/enforcement proceeding against a party who has relocated with a child contrary to the requirements of a prior court order, or is otherwise not complying with a prior court order concerning relocation, or in the event there has been a relocation in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, you must file a motion with the court explaining what the party has failed to do....

...At the hearing, as in other civil proceedings, you, as the party seeking contempt or return of children, will have the burden of proof. The other party will have an opportunity to put on defenses, if any apply. If the judge finds the other party to be in willful contempt or in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, the judge may order appropriate sanctions to compel compliance or return of the child(ren) by the other party, including jail, payment of attorneys’ fees, suit money, court costs, coercive or compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law....

...This form or a similar form should be used in the development of a Parenting Plan. If the case involves supervised time-sharing, the Supervised/Safety Focused Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court *841 Approved Family Law Form 12.995(b) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then a Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...viding protection for the child(ren). If safety or supervised *858 time-sharing is not a concern, Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(a) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...The child is scheduled to reside the majority of the time with the Father. The Father is designated as the "custodian" or "residential parent" of the child.... Because the trial court's findings confirm that Orta met her burden of proof for relocation with the child, we reverse. [2] Section 61.13001(7) of the Florida Statutes governing relocation requests expressly states that no "presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child" arises simply because a "move will materially affect the current schedule of...

...741.28 or which meets the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d) by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation. (k) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13. § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...ion is in the best interest of the child. If that burden of proof is met, the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent or other person to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent or other person proposing to relocate with the child and with the nonrelocating parent, other persons, siblings, half-siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life, section 61.13001(7)(a), the court found that this child had enjoyed a close relationship with Orta from birth, that is, for the entirety of this two year-old's life and that in the months after Orta relocated, the child also had developed a close and loving relationship with Suarez. As to the age and developmental stage of the child, the needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child (section 61.13001(7)(b)), the trial court recognized that while some changes are inherent in any relocation no significant or permanent *995 adverse impacts to relocating this child had been identified. No consideration was accorded by the court below to this child's preference, given that he is only two years old. See § 61.13001(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (2010). As to a history of substance abuse or domestic violence, including consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation (section 61.13001(7)(j)), none was found. As to the remaining criteria, both the record and the final judgment itself confirm that relocation was surely in the best interest of this child. See § 61.13001(7)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010) (requiring the court below to consider "[w]hether relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent ... seeking relocation and the child, including, but not limited to, financial... benefits ") (emphasis added); § 61.13001(7)(f), Fla. Stat. (2010) (requiring the court below to consider the "reasons each parent ... is seeking ... relocation"); § 61.13001(7)(g), Fla....

...(2010) (requiring the court below to consider the "current employment and economic circumstances of each parent and whether the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the parent ... seeking relocation of the child ") (emphasis added); § 61.13001(7)(h), Fla....

...(2010) (requiring the court below to consider whether "the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligation to the parent ... seeking relocation, including child support"); § 61.13001(7)(i), Fla....

...California where she had a good job offer, continue her career in dentistry, and hope that the child could relocate to California (either by the Father's agreement to do so or by court order). Despite these determinations, the court below, citing to section 61.13001(7)(c), inconsistently concluded that "the Court believes that the best interests of the child are currently served by the child remaining in Miami and following a timesharing plan as set forth in this Final Judgment, as least given the parent's respective work schedule and relative flexibility, and given the child's current school schedule, age, and developmental stage." Section 61.13001(7)(c) deals with (1) whether substitute visitation arrangements may be made taking "into consideration the logistics of contact, access, and time sharing, as well as the financial circumstances of the parties" so that a meaningful re...

...The record and final judgment also confirm that both parties are financially and otherwise capable of time-sharing despite the distances involved in this case and that both parties are capable of and have successfully been complying with substitute arrangements for bi-coastal visitation. Thus, as to section 61.13001(7)(c), the court's findings provide no barrier to the move sought, and the balance of the court's findings as to each of the factors identified in section 61.13001(7) overwhelmingly supported granting the motion for relocation....

...The court's findings as related to section 61.13(3)(a), "[t]he 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," are directly applicable to section 61.13001(7)(c), and demonstrate that it was Orta who was the parent who would best "foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent." While both parties were fairly good at time sharing, Orta was the...

...The court's findings addressing section 61.13(3)(c), "[t]he 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," again directly support the conclusion that under section 61.13001(3)(a), Orta carried her burden of showing the move was in the child's best interest considering the "quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent or other person proposing to relocate with...

...the child's birth, appears to reflect those feelings. (Emphasis added). Additionally while the trial court found no evidence that either parent knowingly provided false information of domestic abuse, when addressing section 61.13(3)(n), relevant to section 61.13001(7)(j), it did conclude that Suarez had engaged in emotional abuse: Judge Karan did state on the record that she did not believe there was evidence that the Father was "a batterer." This Court is likewise unconvinced that the credible...

...[3] This can hardly be said to redound in favor of the child remaining in Miami. Again addressing the parenting tasks undertaken by each parent and their reliance on third party caregivers under section 61.13(3)(o), [4] but also directly applicable to section 61.13001(7)(a), the final judgment confirms that before litigation began Orta was the sole caregiver but after she had to move to California, Suarez has cared for this child, but only with a significant and worrisome reliance on third parties...

...Of course, acclimating to a new daily routine and schedule, becoming accustomed to a new home and surroundings, and adjusting to no longer being with the parent with whom the child previously lived, are inherent in every relocation, and again exactly the type of consideration that section 61.13001(7), expressly directs should not be determinative in considering a contested motion for relocation....

...3d DCA 2008) (rejecting the trial courts reliance as a basis for denial of relocation on the stress and disruption to the child caused by the divorce and long-distance separation). In sum, the trial court's findings of fact addressing both sections 61.13(3) and 61.13001(7), confirm that Orta more than carried her burden of proving that relocation to California was in this child's best....

...By contrast, Suarez failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation was not in the child's best interest. Absent such a showing, the trial court should have granted Orta's motion for relocation and devised a parenting plan in accordance with that ruling. See § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...pending litigation, including the extent to which parenting responsibilities were undertaken by third parties. [5] The outcome below perhaps best explains why it is imperative that relocation motions be addressed at the earliest opportunity and why section 61.13001 provides for temporary relocations. Section 61.13001(6), Florida Statutes (2010) provides: (6) Temporary order.— ......

...2d DCA 2000) ("[I]t is necessary for a trial judge to consider the relocation factors at the earliest opportunity because of the wide-ranging and intense ramifications that moving can have upon the best interest of the child."); accord Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So.2d 1053, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). [6] Section 61.13001, provides: (7) No presumption; factors to determine contested relocation.—A presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child does not arise if a parent or other person seeks to relocate and the move will mater...

...The Florida Supreme Court held “that a best interests determination in petitions for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Id. at 459. The Court reasoned that such a “prospective- based” analysis is unsound because section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006), which sets forth the various factors a trial court must consider in reaching a determination on a parent’s request for permanent relocation, “could change within the extended time period given by the court before relocation.” Id....

PER CURIAM. Appellant Justo Manuel Garcia appeals the trial court’s “Order Granting Mother’s Petition for Relocation with Minor Child,” granting relocation pursuant to section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes....

...family plans that they thought it was in the [W]ife's best interest to transition to St. Croix." In the written order, the court acknowledged that the relocation of the children predated the petition for dissolution such that the relocation statute, section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017), did not apply; however, the court reiterated its jurisdiction over the children and its obligation to address the best interests of the children as they pertain to the establishment of a parenting plan including time-sharing....

...state without leave of the court and that their passports should be held by the Husband's attorney or in the registry of the court. The Wife first contends that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to consider the relocation factors set forth in section 61.13001(7)....

...e nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child[ren]'s relationship" with the Wife or how the children's ages and developmental stages (at three and four years old) would be impacted by a move away from the primary caregiver. See § 61.13001(7)(a), (b). Further, although the court found that historically the parties cared for the children themselves, the court apparently disregarded the undisputed testimony that if the Husband were given primary time-sharing the children would be in daycare or preschool from at least 10:00 a.m....

...children and placing the burden of proof on the father, as the nonrelocating parent, to show that the relocation is not in the best interests of the children, we reverse and remand for a hearing consistent with the burden of proof as set forth in section 61.13001(8), Florida Statutes (2017). I. SUMMARY OF ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue on appeal concerns the interaction between two subsections of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017), Parental Relocation with a Child. Section 61.13001(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that if a petition to relocate with a minor child is filed and served and an objection to the relocation is not timely filed, it is presumed that the relocation is in the best interest of the child and the trial court may enter an order allowing relocation. Section 61.13001(8), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that if there is an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relocation is in the best interest of the child, the person requesting relocation has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is in the best interest....

...objection was not filed but where the trial court found there was good cause for the failure to file and ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the relocation is in the best interest of the child, does the statutory presumption found in section 61.13001(3)(d) that relocation is in the best interest carry over to the evidentiary hearing and shift the burden of proof from the party requesting the relocation to the objecting party to first prove by a preponderance of evidence that the relocation is not in the best interest of the child....

...ville, Alabama. The mother sought to relocate because her current husband, who lives in California, had accepted a job offer in Huntsville, and is was her desire to move to Huntsville with the children to live with her husband. In accordance with section 61.13001(3)(a)(7), Florida Statues (2017), the Petition included the following statement: 3  A RESPONSE TO THIS PETITION OBJECTING TO RELOCATION MUST BE MADE IN WRITING,...

...On May 8, 2017, the father’s counsel filed a Motion for Additional Time to File a Responsive Pleading. On May 11, 2017, the mother filed a Motion for Entry of Order Allowing Relocation Due to Former Husband’s Failure to File an Objection to Relocation Pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (“Motion for Entry of Order Allowing Relocation”)....

...On June 19, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on the mother’s Motion for Entry of Order Allowing Relocation. At the hearing, the trial court found that the father’s failure to file a response objecting to the Petition within twenty days as required by section 61.13001(3)(a)(7) was caused by his attorney’s failure to file the required objection and instead filing a motion for additional time and was not due to 4 the fault of the father. As a result, the trial court found good cause was shown pursuant to section 61.13001(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2017), for the trial court not to enter an order allowing relocation....

...nsion of time and that such was “in no fault, the client’s [,i.e, the father’s] error.” A hearing on the merits of the mother’s Petition took place on June 26, 2017. At the start of the hearing, the mother argued that pursuant to section 61.13001(3)(d), the father’s failure to timely file a response objecting to the Petition established a presumption that the relocation was in the best interests of the children and that as a result, the burden of proof shifted from the m...

...Though the statute provides for the Court to rule in favor of the [mother] without hearing from [father], the Court held a hearing and weighed the Petition to Relocate and the evidence presented by [father]. The trial court considered the factors set forth in paragraphs (a)-(i) of section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2017), specifically finding with regard to factors (b), (c), (e), and (f) that the father failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is not in the best interest of the children, and...

...ition to Relocate. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “An order on a petition for relocation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the appellate court considers whether competent, substantial evidence supports the court’s findings under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes.” Ness v....

...2006) (“The interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.”). IV. ANALYSIS The father raises several issues on appeal. We address only one—whether the trial court erred in applying the presumption set forth in section 61.13001(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2017), and in shifting the burden of proof to the father despite finding good cause to not enter an order allowing relocation and proceeding to a hearing on the merits of the mother’s Petition....

...7 statute, we conclude that the trial court was incorrect in applying the presumption and shifting the burden of proof to the father in the evidentiary hearing. This case concerns a parent’s petition to relocate with a child filed under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017). Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirements for petitions to relocate, and provides in relevant part: (3) Petition to relocate.--Unless an agreement has been entered as described in subsection (2), a...

...The order may be issued in an expedited manner without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. If a response is timely filed, the parent or other person may not relocate, and must proceed to a temporary hearing or trial and obtain court permission to relocate. Section 61.13001(8), Florida Statutes (2017), governs the burden of proof for petitions to relocate and provides as follows: (8) Burden of proof.-- The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proving b...

...the non-relocating parent or other person to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. The issue of whether the legislature intended the presumption set forth in section 61.13001(3)(d) to operate at a hearing on the merits conducted after the trial court finds good cause not to enter an order allowing relocation is a matter of statutory construction....

...Moreover, in discerning legislative intent, a court must also “give effect to all statutory provisions, and construe related provisions in harmony with one another.” Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of N.Y., 840 So. 2d 993, 996 (Fla. 2003). Here, the trial court relied on section 61.13001(3)(d) when it “presumed that the relocation is in the best interests of the parties’ children and that the relocation should be allowed, and that the burden of proof shifted to [father].” Specifically, the trial court relied...

...The trial court’s application of the presumption that the “relocation is in the best interests of the child and that the relocation should be allowed” at a hearing conducted after finding good cause not to enter an order allowing relocation is not supported by the clear language of section 61.13001(3)(d)....

...access to or time-sharing with the child fails to timely file a response objecting to the petition to relocate.” Id. The statute, however, provides for an exception when “good cause” exists. Id.; see also Ryan v. Ryan, 252 So. 3d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Section 61.13001(3)(d) provides that where a parent fails to timely file a response objecting to a petition to relocate, the court shall enter an order granting the petition ‘absent good cause.’”)....

...The statute thus instructs that where an objection is filed, or good cause exists, “the parent or other person may not relocate, and must proceed to a temporary hearing or trial and obtain court permission to relocate.” Id. In other words, the presumption set forth in section 61.13001(3)(d) applies in the absence of good cause....

...the best interest of the parties’ children. Once the trial court found good cause for the failure of the objection to be timely filed and determined that the matter would proceed to a hearing on the merits of the mother’s Petition, the burden of proof as set forth in section 61.13001(8) applied....

...the child.” Id. Only once that burden is met does the burden of proof shift “to the non-relocating parent or other person to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.” Id. Section 61.13001(8) does not contain an exception for hearings conducted after the trial court finds good cause not to enter an order allowing relocation, nor does it provide that the presumption set forth in section 61.13001(3)(d) carries forth to a hearing on the merits....

...2010) (“[A] best interests determination in petitions for relocation . . . must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”). V. CONCLUSION Based on the forgoing, we conclude the trial court erred in applying the presumption set forth in section 61.13001(3)(d) and shifting the burden of proof to 13 the father....

...Relocate, treat the Order as a non-final order granting temporary relocation, see Ryan, 252 So. 3d at 273; Vaelizadeh v. Hossaini, 174 So. 3d 579, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and remand for a hearing in accordance with the proper burden of proof as set forth in section 61.13001(8). Reversed and remanded. 14 

...rt’s decision to allow Monica D’Arcio Wing (“Former Wife”) to relocate with the parties’ minor children to her native country of Italy. The trial court’s ruling was an error of law insofar as it failed to apply the explicit directives in section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...While we do not disagree with our dissenting colleague’s point that Former Husband was knowledgeable of Former Wife’s desire to relocate as early as her first counter-petition for dissolution of marriage filed in 2003, we cannot endorse the undeniable effect of his conclusion, which grafts onto the provisions of section 61.13001(3) a rule of substantial compliance that may be overcome only by proof of prejudice. The mandate in section 61.13001(3) is clear: The parent seeking to relocate “must file a petition to relocate and serve it upon the other parent”; “[t]he pleadings must be in accordance with this section”; “[t]he petition to relocate must be signed under...

...to the petition objecting to relocation “must ” appear and on whom it “must ” be served; and “[t]he petition to relocate must be served on the other parent and on every other person entitled to access to and time-sharing with the child.” § 61.13001(3)(a) & (b), Fla....

...We cannot- ignore the legislature’s use in the statute of the emphatic “must” in order to achieve a more convenient result. See Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So.3d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). While the facts in Raulerson , might have presented a greater imperative for the strict application of the mandatory notice terms of section 61.13001(3), as the dissent argues, we cannot conclude the facts of this case demand any less strict application. Section 61.13001(3) says what it says, and we are impelled by its clarity to give effect to its terms. See also Milton v. Milton, 113 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). In the present case, because there was no valid agreement between the parties regarding the children’s relocation, as described in section 61.13001(2), Florida Statutes (2009), Former Wife was obliged to comply strictly with the requirements of section 61.13001(3)....

...only to the noncustodial parent. See § 61.13(4)(a), Fla. Stat (2006) ("when a noncustodial parent ... who is afforded visitation rights"); (4)(b) ("when a custodial parent refuses to honor a noncustodial parent's visitation rights"); (4)(c) (same); § 61.13001(2)(a) ("if the primary residential parent and the other parent......

...Roy of Roy & Associates, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Andrew A. Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Tana R. Sachs Copple of Copple Sachs Copple, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee. GROSS, J. On May 4, 2017, the father filed a supplemental petition for relocation pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017). The petition was served on the mother on May 17, 2017, and she was required to file a response “within 20 days after service of [the] petition to relocate.” § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...is in the best interests of the children based upon the undisputed pleadings.” The court adopted the time-sharing schedule and post-relocation transportation arrangements contained within the petition and attached a relocation parenting plan. Section 61.13001(3)(d) provides that where a parent fails to timely file a response objecting to a petition to relocate, the court shall enter an order granting the petition “absent good cause.” Here, “good cause” existed to preclude entr...

...interests. See Vaelizadeh v. Hossaini, 174 So. 3d 579, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). As we did in Vaelizadeh, we reverse the relocation judgment, treat the judgment as a non-final order granting temporary relocation, and remand for a hearing consistent with section 61.13001. CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. -2- 

...The father testified to his interaction with the child and his ability to provide for the child in Florida. At the close of the evidence, the judge ruled and specifically noted that he had considered the factors contained in section 61.13, as well as the relocation statute, section 61.13001....

...The former husband appeals a non-final order authorizing his former wife to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ minor child on a temporary basis. We reverse because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before allowing the temporary relocation, contrary to the requirements of section 61.13001(6)(b), Florida Statutes....

...of San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. Mulcahy, 50 Cal.App.2d 418 , 123 P.2d 114, 118 (1942); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c). We therefore “reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing from which the court can determine the necessary findings required by section 61.13001.” Mata, 75 So.3d at 343 ....

...Father contends that there was no competent and substantial evidence to support the court’s final order. Having reviewed the trial court’s thorough order, and the record evidence upon which it was based, we find that the trial court properly considered and applied the requisite and applicable factors set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2014), and articulated findings of fact which were supported by the competent substantial evidence presented....

...ublished it for comment, and again requested comments with regard to the twelve (three from the Committee and nine from the Workgroup) proposed relocation forms. In the interim, in both the 2008 and 2009 legislative sessions, the Legislature amended section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, governing relocation. See ch. 2008-61, § 9, Laws of Fla. (amending section 61.13001 primarily to remove the terms "visitation," "primary residential parent," "primary residence," "custody" and similar terms, and insert references to "time-sharing" and "parenting plan"); ch. 2009-180, § 4, Laws of Fla. (significantly amending the relocation process set out in section 61.13001)....

...roved Family Law Forms. Relocation Rule As discussed above, the Committee, working with the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, previously proposed new rule 12.635 (Relocation of Minor Child), but that proposal was based upon the prior version of section 61.13001 that set forth different requirements. The Court's own proposed rule 12.635 was also based upon the prior version of the statute. As noted, the Committee now recommends that no rule of procedure is necessary, in that section 61.13001, as amended, sufficiently sets forth the relocation procedures, and a rule would only reiterate the statute....

...*383 Relocation Forms The eleven new relocation forms submitted by the Workgroup are adopted as Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms. The first two forms, form 12.950(a) (Relocation by Agreement) and accompanying form 12.950(b) (Motion for Order Permitting Relocation by Agreement), are designed to implement section 61.13001(2), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...Forms 12.950(c) (Petition for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Children and Relocation) and 12.950(d) (Supplemental Petition to Permit Relocation with Minor Children) are intended to be used when the relocation process is initiated by a petition in accordance with section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...OLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH DEPENDENT OR MINOR CHILD(REN) AND RELOCATION (09/10) When should this form be used? This form should be used when a husband or wife is filing for dissolution of marriage, there are dependent or minor children and pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes: 1....

...{ If applicable} The following other person is an individual who is not a parent but with whom the child resides pursuant to a court order, or who has the right of access to, time-sharing with, or visitation with the child(ren)__________________________________________________________. 3. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: a....

...Since the final judgment or last modification thereof, there has been a substantial change in circumstances, requiring a modification of the present visitation or time-sharing schedule because I seek to relocate my principal residence at least 50 miles from my principal residence. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: *427 a....

...*437 SECTION II: GRANTING OF TEMPORARY ORDER PERMITTING RELOCATION [Please choose all that apply] 1. ___ The Motion for Temporary Order Permitting Relocation is GRANTED as the Court finds: The petition to relocate was properly filed and is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes; AND From an examination of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, there is a likelihood that at a final hearing the court will approve the relocation of the child, based upon the factors set forth in Section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes....

...t order. SECTION III: DENIAL OF TEMPORARY ORDER PERMITTING RELOCATION [Please choose all that apply] 1. ___ The Motion for Temporary Order Permitting Relocation is DENIED because a. ___ The petition to relocate does not comply with subsection (3) of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes; b....

...ndirect criminal contempt proceedings, which may include arrest, incarceration, and/or the imposition of a fine. 3. ___ Immediate Return of Child(ren) The ( ) Petitioner ( ) Respondent has failed to comply with the relocation procedures set forth in Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and has relocated the child(ren) in violation of that section....

...IL CONTEMPT AND/OR RETURN OF CHILD(REN) (09/10) When should this form be used? You may use this form to ask the court to *441 enforce a prior court order, final judgment or to request the return of a child(ren) who has been relocated in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...What should I do next? To initiate a civil contempt/enforcement proceeding against a party who has relocated with a child contrary to the requirements of a prior court order, or is otherwise not complying with a prior court order concerning relocation, or in the event there has been a relocation in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, you must file a motion with the court explaining what the party has failed to do....

...At the hearing, as in other civil proceedings, you, as the party seeking contempt or return of children, will have the burden of proof. The other party will have an opportunity to put on defenses, if any apply. If the judge finds the other party to be in willful contempt or in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, the judge may order appropriate sanctions to compel compliance or return of the child(ren) by the other party, including jail, payment of attorneys' fees, suit money, court costs, coercive or compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law....

..._______________________________________________. ___ Please indicate here if the judgment or order is not from this Court and attach a copy of the judgment or order to this motion. ____ Written Agreement of the parties. ____ Relocation procedures of Section 61.13001,Florida Statutes....

...________________________________________ ____ Please indicate here if additional pages are attached. C. The other party in this case has willfully failed to comply with this order or judgment of the court, a written agreement, or the requirements of Section 61.13001,Florida Statutes: {Explain what the other party has or has not done}....

...______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ OR B. ___ There is no prior court order; however, the above-named person has violated the requirements of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and I respectfully request that the court issue an order providing the following relief: 1. ___ ordering the immediate return of the minor child(ren); 2. ___ granting a temporary order restraining the relocation of the minor child(ren); 3. ___ enforcing or compelling compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes; 4....

..._______ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ c. ___ Contrary to the relocation procedures set forth in Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. 2. ___ The ( ) Petitioner ( ) Respondent has willfully failed to comply either with the order of the Court or with the requirements of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes as follows: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________...

...A copy of this Agreement is attached as Exhibit _________. 3. ___ Evidentiary Hearing. The Court finds that the relocation is in the best interests of the child(ren) based upon the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. The Court has evaluated each of the factors enumerated in Section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, and FINDS: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________...

...tablishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time of filing of the pending action to establish or modify time-sharing. The relocation is for a period of more than 60 consecutive days. *453 The Court has evaluated each of the factors enumerated in Section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, and on the evidence presented, it is adjudged: SECTION II....

...her order of the court. Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...But the court also provided for a local timesharing plan that would apply if one of the parties relocated in the future and if the parties resided within fifty miles of one another. The trial court abused its discretion by including this provisional award of timesharing. Under section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes (2020), unless the parents of a minor child agree, a parent seeking to relocate more than fifty miles from their current residence must petition the court for approval....

...the traditional, dual-parenting paradigm ingrained in many sources of family law. Florida’s parental relocation statute, however, lends itself to an application that expands standing beyond two legally recognized parents. 5 Under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2022), a party desiring to relocate fifty or more miles from his or her principal place of residence must obtain an agreement from the other parent “and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child.” § 61.13001(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In the absence of such an agreement, the relocating party must file a petition with the trial court. § 61.13001(3), Fla. Stat. The petition must be served upon “the other parent, and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child.” § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...include the specific factual basis supporting the reasons for seeking a prohibition of the relocation, including a statement of the amount of participation or involvement the objecting party currently has or has had in the life of the child.” § 61.13001(5), Fla....

...Stat. Implicit in the plain language of these provisions is that all persons served with a petition, which necessarily includes “every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child,” is endowed with standing to object to a proposed relocation. § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...refusing to allow temporary relocation. Within the eighteen-page order on appeal, the trial court found that relocation was not in the best interests of the child. In doing so, the court examined the enumerated statutory factors and all other salient considerations. See § 61.13001(7)(a)–(k), Fla....

...Because the relevant statute does not require the petitioning party to append a written job offer to the petition unless such an offer constitutes the basis for relocation, the trial court erred in finding the petition legally insufficient.2 See § 61.13001(3)(a)5., Fla....

...e proper review of a 2 It is undisputed that the fiancé had been employed by the military for a considerable period of time. Thus, the mother did not assert that she wished to move because of a “job offer that has been reduced to writing.” § 61.13001(3)(a)5., Fla....

...The trial court rendered several additional conclusions, including that a continued relationship with the putative father and his extended family is consistent with best interests because it provides a singularly stabilizing force in the life of the child. See § 61.13001(7)(a), Fla....

...Because the record is undeveloped as to whether available visitation alternatives could adequately “foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the [putative father],” this alone presents adequate grounds for affirmance. § 61.13001(7)(c), Fla....

...location statute). Instead, the proper standard for evaluating the proposed substitute visitation is whether the substitute visitation is “sufficient to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent.” § 61.13001(7)(c), Fla....

...We note that this is not a relocation case in the strict sense because there was no court order in place when the Mother left Sarasota and moved to the Seattle area with the children. Nevertheless, the trial court must consider the relocation factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7) as part of its evaluation of “all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child” as required by section 61.13(3)....

...it necessary to revisit the issues of child support and visitation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. . The trial court entered the final judgment on December 18, 2007. Therefore, section 61.13001, the current version of the parental relocation statute, applies to the determination of the relocation issue. See § 61.13001(10(a)(2).

...Florida Statutes; 3. A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior court approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

..._____ A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. 3....

...Florida Statutes; 3. A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior court approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

..._____ A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. 3....

...hearing on reunification. The father’s attorney, however, objected to the permanent guardian moving out of state and depriving the father of the continuing contact he was enjoying with his daughters. The attorney contended that the court should apply section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2014), regarding relocation of the child. The court ultimately rejected that position....

...3 objection of the father. As the father points out, a determination of the children’s best interests regarding the relocation is necessary. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, compliance with the provisions of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2014), regarding relocation of a child, is required, even in a permanent guardianship situation. Section 61.13001(1)(a), Florida Statutes, defines “child,” for the purposes of the Parental Relocation with a Child statute, as meaning “any person who is under the jurisdiction of a state court pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [(“UCCJEA”)] . . . .” It defines “relocation” as meaning the “change in location of the . . . parent or other person . . . .” § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla....

...denying her petition to relocate with her minor child. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing over the course of four days, and thereafter entered an order denying the petition for relocation, which properly considered and analyzed each of the requisite factors enumerated in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2023)....

...The court declined to remove the child until she completed the school year. The court made extensive factual findings regarding the statutory factors in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2023). The court made no findings regarding the relocation factors contained in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2023)....

...an environment free from substance abuse, pay for private school, transport the child, and encourage the parent-child relationship with the mother. 1 1 The mother also argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to consider the section 61.13001 relocation factors, as the judgment requires the child to move from her home in Florida to Michigan....

...This appeal is from an order entered prior to a final judgment of dissolution providing that the parties’ minor child would attend his first year of high school at an out-of-state private school. We reject Appellant’s assertion that the order is one for relocation under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2012), and hold that it is merely an order regarding an educational decision for the child....

...idence was in the best interests of the child. The mother, finally, claims that the father did not properly notice his intention to relocate to another jurisdiction with the child. This issue is without legal merit. The notice of relocation statute, section 61.13001(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), applies to the residential parent's notice to the non-residential parent that she or he intends to relocate with the child....

...court’s agreement with that statement). Even if the Illinois court had relied on the 2020 relocation agreement to support its decision, that agreement could not be considered a tipsy coachman ground to affirm because, as Appellee correctly notes, it did not comply with section 61.13001(2)’s requirements that a relocation 6  Accordingly, we reverse the order denying rehearing and remand with instructions to the Florida court to vacate its decision to decline its exclusive, c...

...Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Former Wife’s motion to dismiss and directing the parties to attend mediation. 1 The parties attended mediation on November 15, 2011, which resulted in an impasse. The next day, Former Wife filed a petition to relocate the child pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2011)....

...Former Wife later provided Former Husband with a post office box address, but refused to give him her physical address in Indiana. Following the hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment denying Former Wife’s petition to relocate. Applying the factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, the trial court found that Former Wife failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation was in the best interest of the child....

...laim of ‘emergency’ by her unilateral removal of the child from Florida, without permission of the [Former Husband] or this Court.” Former Wife raises a number of issues on appeal. For example, she argues that the trial court erred in applying section 61.13001, Florida Statutes — the statute governing relocation — to this case....

...ial change in circumstances since entry of the initial judgment determining time-sharing, pursuant to section 61.13, Florida Statutes. We first note that Former Wife did not raise this issue below. In fact, she specifically sought relief pursuant to section 61.13001 in her petition to relocate....

SUAREZ, C.J. Appellant Stephanie Morell appeals an Order requiring her to file a petition for relocation under Florida Statute Section 61.13001 (2016)....

...Lauderdale), for appellant. Law Offices of Karim Batista, P.A. and Karim Batista, for appellee. Before SUAREZ, C.J., and SALTER and LOGUE, JJ. SUAREZ, C.J. Appellant Stephanie Morell appeals an Order requiring her to file a petition for relocation under Florida Statute Section 61.13001 (2016)....

...ing payment, the order on appeal requires the Husband to make the payment "to [the] Wife's attorney's trust fund to cover his share of counseling expenses." The order finds that the Husband has the ability to pay this "security deposit" and cites section 61.13001(6)(d), as authority for this provision. The Husband argues the provision is not authorized by section 61.13001(6)(d) because the court orally declined to require the Husband to post a security bond under that provision. He also argues that there was no testimony regarding the cost of counseling to support the $500 payment. Section 61.13001(6)(d) authorizes a court that approves a temporary relocation to "require the person relocating the child to provide reasonable security, financial or otherwise, and guarantee that the court-ordered contact with the child not be interrupted or interfered with by the relocating party." The Husband is correct that the trial court orally assured the Husband that he would not be required to post a bond under this provision. And while the court's order refers to a "security deposit" and cites to section 61.13001(6)(d), it specifies that the $500 monthly payment is for "counseling and other related costs," not security. Regardless of whether the court mischaracterized the $500 monthly payment as a security deposit, we recogni...

...The appellant seeks review of the denial of her petition for relocation that was decided in a nonfinal order of dissolution of marriage. The order denied the petition upon determining the best interest of the *367 minor child pursuant to an analysis of the factors set forth in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...to relocate, she is unhappy with the provisions dealing with the father’s timesharing. There is no due process violation. A relocation of a significant distance, such as this one, necessarily involves revisiting timesharing issues for the parent not seeking the move. Under section 61.13001(9), Florida Statutes (2017), if a trial court approves a parent’s petition for relocation, the court has the discretion to adjust timesharing to ensure the child has “frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with the nonrelocating parent ....

...Contrary to the mother’s argument, the focus in a relocation case is not on whether there is a substantial and material change in circumstances. “There is a clear distinction between modification based on changed circumstances under section 61.13(3) and relocation under section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes.” Fosshage v....

...modified timesharing schedule is to ensure frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact between the nonrelocating parent and the child. The -3- relocation statute anticipates that the court will modify the parties’ timesharing schedule. See § 61.13001(3)(a)6., (7)(c), Fla....

...MINOR CHILD(REN) AND RELOCATION (11/15) When should this form be used? This form should be used when a husband or wife is filing for dissolution of marriage, there are dependent or minor children and pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes: 1....

...{ If applicable} The following other person is an individual who is not a parent but with whom the child resides pursuant to a court order, or who has the right of access to, time-sharing with, or visitation with the child(ren)__________________________________________________________. 3. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: a....

...Since the final judgment or last modification thereof, there has been a substantial change in circumstances, requiring a modification of the present visitation or time-sharing schedule because I seek to relocate my principal residence at least 50 miles from my principal residence. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.950(d), Supplemental Petition to Permit Relocation with Child(ren)(11/15) - 336 -  a....

...(11/15) When should this form be used? You may use this form to ask the court to enforce a prior court order, final judgment or to request the return of a child(ren) who has been relocated in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes . What should I do next? To initiate a civil contempt/enforcement proceeding against a party who has relocated with a child contrary to the requirements of a prior court order, or is otherwise not complying with a prior court order concerning relocation, or in the event there has been a relocation in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, you must file a motion with the court explaining what the party has failed to do....

...ings, you, as the party seeking contempt or return of children, will have the burden of proof. The other party will have an opportunity to put on defenses, if any apply. If the judge finds the other party to be in willful contempt or in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, the judge may order appropriate sanctions to compel compliance or return of the child(ren) by the other party, including jail, payment of attorneys’ fees, suit money, court costs, coercive or compensatory fines,...

...____ Please indicate here if the judgment or order is not from this Court and attach a copy of the judgment or order to this motion. 2.____ Written Agreement of the parties. 3.____ Relocation procedures of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. B....

...____ Please indicate here if additional pages are attached. C. The other party in this case has willfully failed to comply with this order or judgment of the court , a written agreement, or the requirements of Section 61.13001,Florida Statutes: {Explain what the other party has or has not done}.___________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________...

...___________________________________________________________________________ OR B. ___ There is NO prior court order; however, the above-named person has violated the requirements of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and I respectfully request that the court issue an order providing the following relief: 1. _____ ordering the immediate return of the minor child(ren); 2. _____ granting a temporary order restraining the relocation of the minor child(ren); 3. _____ enforcing or compelling compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes; 4....

...This form or a similar form should be used in the development of a Parenting Plan. If the case involves supervised time-sharing, the Supervised/Safety Focused Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(b) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then a Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used. This form should be typed or printed in black ink....

...Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. XV....

...e providing protection for the child(ren). If safety or supervised time-sharing is not a concern, Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(a) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used. This form should be typed or printed in black ink....

...ourt. Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. XV....

...Florida Statutes; 3. A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior court approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

..._____ A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. 3....

..._ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. Marci L. Goodman, Judge. May 6, 2019 PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the final order denying her petition to relocate with the minor child, pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017)....

County when he filed the instant petition under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017), to allow him and

competent, substantial evidence of record. See § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat

...han with their mother in North Carolina; (2) nullified a substantial amount of unpaid and vested child support arrearages; and (3) ordered the mother to pay child support to the father without a determination of need and ability to pay: Section 61.13001(3)(e), Florida Statutes, expressly provides that a parent’s relocation of a minor child without complying with the statute “may be taken into account” by the court in considering a petition for modification or relocation....

...the child in violation of an injunction). Punishment of the Mother for violation of a court order may affect, but does not conclude, the inquiry regarding the trial court’s assessment of the “best interests of the child” for purposes of sections 61.13 and 61.13001....

...video testimony may be considered by the court in determining whether good cause is established for audio testimony. 6 While we do not mandate this result, we would be remiss were we not to note the 7 only section 61.130017 of the Florida Statutes but also shall be supported by detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the factors enumerated in section 61.13(3)(a)-(t) of the Florida Statutes.8 Furthermore, any fee or cost award...

...aid the court in fairly determining the child’s best interests. See Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). 624 So. 2d at 392; see also McEwen [v.Rodriguez], 766 So. 2d [316] at 317 [Fla. 4th DCA 2000]. 7 Section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes addresses parental relocation with a child. 8 See Velazquez v....

...subject matter jurisdiction because the mother relied on the wrong version of the Florida statutes governing relocation requests. The trial court rejected this argument and subsequently ruled that the mother had satisfied the requirements imposed by section 61.13001(7) of the Florida Statutes and that she would be allowed to relocate. The father claims here, as he did below, that because section 61.13001 is inapplicable to the instant controversy, the court below lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider this relocation request....

...Lovett, 93 Fla. 611 , 112 So. 768 (1927), for the proposition that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction ‘concerns the power of the trial court to deal with a class of eases to which a particular case belongs’ ”). Relocation requests, whether made under section 61.13001 or the law preceding adoption of that provision, fall squarely within Chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes and the jurisdictional purview of the circuit courts. See § 61.13001(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009) (defining the term “Court” as used in section 61.13001 as “the circuit court in the county in which either parent and the child reside”); § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...iles”); see also Brown v. Broum, 790 So.2d 453 -54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (confirming that a circuit court had the authority to modify provisions of a final judgment prohibiting relocation). Thus, while we agree that the trial court erred in applying section 61.13001 to the instant relocation request because that provision states that it applies to orders entered before October 1, 2009, if those orders “do[ ] not expressly govern relocation of the child,” 1 we cannot agree that *970 this error deprived the court below of jurisdiction to consider this relocation request. Nor can we agree that the instant order must be reversed because the court below determined that the criteria set forth in section 61.13001 had been met....

...child from the state or jurisdiction. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 452 So.2d 14, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417, 420 (Fla.1993) (concluding that in addition to consideration of the factors subsequently delineated in sections 61.13 and 61.13001 relating to best interests of the child, “in cases where the final judgment incorporates a prohibition against the relocation of the child thereby reflecting that the issue was litigated, the parent with the primary residential responsibil...

...rohibition against relocation, the moving party must show a change of circumstances in order to justify relocation.”); MacConnell v. Cascante, 668 So.2d 668, 669-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (concluding that in addition to the Mize (or section 61.13 and 61.13001) factors, “where the final judgment incorporates a prohibition against the relocation of the child, the parent with primary residential responsibility must show a change of circumstances to justify the relocation”). For this reason alone we reverse and remand for a determination as to whether this requirement has been met. Reversed and remanded with instructions. . Section 61.13001(11 )(a) 1....

...2d DCA 2019) (quoting M.M. v. J.H., 251 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)). On remand, the circuit court must include the child support guideline worksheet and make findings on both parties’ income. iv. Any Relocation Order Must Comply With Section 61.13001 Finally, the Former Wife argues the circuit court erred when it allowed the Former Husband to exercise timesharing in Georgia. She argues that section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2021), required the Former Husband to file a pleading seeking permission to relocate the children to Georgia. Because the Former Husband failed to request relocation in a pleading, we agree and reverse. See § 61.13001, Fla. Stat. (2021). On remand, the circuit court may issue an order allowing relocation if the order complies with section 61.13001. Conclusion We reverse the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ.,...

pursuant to the relocation statute codified in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2019), from the mother’s

...MINOR CHILD(REN) AND RELOCATION (03/15) When should this form be used? This form should be used when a husband or wife is filing for dissolution of marriage, there are dependent or minor children and pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes: 1....

...{ If applicable} The following other person is an individual who is not a parent but with whom the child resides pursuant to a court order, or who has the right of access to, time-sharing with, or visitation with the child(ren)__________________________________________________________. 3. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: a....

...Since the final judgment or last modification thereof, there has been a substantial change in circumstances, requiring a modification of the present visitation or time-sharing schedule because I seek to relocate my principal residence at least 50 miles from my principal residence. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.950(d), Supplemental Petition to Permit Relocation with Child(ren) (03/15) - 372 -  a....

...RELOCATION [Please indicate all that apply] 1. _____The Motion for Temporary Order Permitting Relocation is GRANTED as the Court finds: The petition to relocate was properly filed and is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes; AND From an examination of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, there is a likelihood that at a final hearing the court will approve the relocation of the child, based upon the factors set forth in Section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. Facts in support of finding:_________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________...

...SECTION III: DENIAL OF TEMPORARY ORDER PERMITTING RELOCATION [Please indicate all that apply] 1. _____The Motion for Temporary Order Permitting Relocation is DENIED because: a. _____ The petition to relocate does not comply with subsection (3) of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes; b....

...include arrest, incarceration, and/or the imposition of a fine. 3. _____ Immediate Return of Child(ren) The _____ Petitioner_____ Respondent has failed to comply with the relocation procedures set forth in Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and has relocated the child(ren) in violation of that section....

...(03/15) When should this form be used? You may use this form to ask the court to enforce a prior court order, final judgment or to request the return of a child(ren) who has been relocated in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes . What should I do next? To initiate a civil contempt/enforcement proceeding against a party who has relocated with a child contrary to the requirements of a prior court order, or is otherwise not complying with a prior court order concerning relocation, or in the event there has been a relocation in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, you must file a motion with the court explaining what the party has failed to do....

...ings, you, as the party seeking contempt or return of children, will have the burden of proof. The other party will have an opportunity to put on defenses, if any apply. If the judge finds the other party to be in willful contempt or in violation of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, the judge may order appropriate sanctions to compel compliance or return of the child(ren) by the other party, including jail, payment of attorneys’ fees, suit money, court costs, coercive or compensatory fines,...

...____ Please indicate here if the judgment or order is not from this Court and attach a copy of the judgment or order to this motion. 2.____ Written Agreement of the parties. 3.____ Relocation procedures of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. B....

...____ Please indicate here if additional pages are attached. C. The other party in this case has willfully failed to comply with this order or judgment of the court , a written agreement, or the requirements of Section 61.13001,Florida Statutes: {Explain what the other party has or has not done}.___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________...

...__ ___________________________________________________________________________ OR B. ___ There is NO prior court order; however, the above-named person has violated the requirements of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and I respectfully request that the court issue an order providing the following relief: 1. _____ ordering the immediate return of the minor child(ren); 2. _____ granting a temporary order restraining the relocation of the minor child(ren); 3. _____ enforcing or compelling compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes; 4....

..._______ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________. c. _____ Contrary to the relocation procedures set forth in Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. 2. _____ Petitioner _____Respondent has willfully failed to comply either with the order of the Court or with the requirements of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes as follows: _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________...

...___. 3. _____Evidentiary Hearing. The Court finds that the relocation is in the best interests of the child(ren) based upon the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. The Court has evaluated each of the factors enumerated in Section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, and FINDS: ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________...

...Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.950(j), Final Judgment/Supplemental Final Judgment Denying Relocation (03/15) - 405 -  The Court has evaluated each of the factors enumerated in Section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, and on the evidence presented, it is adjudged: SECTION II....

...This form or a similar form should be used in the development of a Parenting Plan. If the case involves supervised time-sharing, the Supervised/Safety Focused Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(b) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then a Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used. This form should be typed or printed in black ink....

...Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. XV....

...e providing protection for the child(ren). If safety or supervised time-sharing is not a concern, Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(a) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used. This form should be typed or printed in black ink....

...ourt. Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. XV....

...from the evidence "a likelihood that on final hearing the court will approve the relocation of the child, which findings must be supported by the same factual basis as would be necessary to support the permitting of relocation in a final judgment." § 61.13001(6)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). The factors to be considered when deciding relocation issues are enumerated in section 61.13001(7). In the alternative, the statute provides for relocation when the parties sign a written agreement that is ratified by the court. § 61.13001(2)....

...In both its oral comments and its written order, the court placed great weight on what it referred to as "the kitchen table agreement." And in doing so, the court erred. Without dispute, the schedule did not suffice as a relocation agreement under section 61.13001(2), which requires a signed writing....

...But it was error for the court to base its relocation decision on a finding that the parties had agreed to the schedule when, in fact, they had not. For this reason, we are compelled to reverse the order approving the temporary relocation and remand for consideration of the issue in light of the factors prescribed in section 61.13001(7)....

...She and her new husband had a baby, and the husband received orders from the U.S. Navy transferring him to Cape Canaveral, Florida for a period of approximately two years. Mother filed an expedited temporary petition for parental relocation pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2022), so that she could move to Cape Canaveral and take the parties’ children with her....

...3d 408, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). However, the question of whether the trial court properly applied the relocation statute is reviewed de novo. Chalmers v. Chalmers, 259 So. 3d 878, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Analysis Section 61.13001 governs parental relocation of 50 miles or more with minor children where there is a time-sharing order or agreement in place. The process is commenced when the parent seeking to move files a petition to relocate; all “pleadings must be in accordance with this section.” § 61.13001(3), Fla. Stat. A 3 temporary petition may be considered. 3 The statute provides that there is no presumption for or against relocation. § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. In order to determine whether relocation is in the best interests of the children, which is the overarching requirement, that statute mandates that the trial court “shall evaluate all” of the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7) in reaching its decision on temporary or permanent relocation. 4 A 3 See § 61.13001(6)(b): The court may grant a temporary order permitting the relocation of the child pending final hearing, if the court finds: 1....

...authorizing a party seeking to relocate or move a child before a final judgment is rendered, the court may not give any weight to the temporary relocation as a factor in reaching its final decision. 4 See § 61.13001(7): In reaching its decision regarding a proposed temporary or permanent relocation, the court shall evaluate all of the following: (a) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of...

...version of this statute. Since the publication of Hardwick, the legislature has had ample time and opportunities to amend the statute to require trial courts to make specific findings, but so far it has not done so. 6  Furthermore, section 61.13001(8) places the burden on Mother, in this case, of “proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child[ren].” Here, Mother testified that the reason for relocation was so that she, her n...

...Her testimony basically established that the “move would improve the home life for the Mother and her new husband,” which is no substitute for proof that the relocation would be in the children’s best interest. Id. at 61. Mother failed to offer proof of any of the statutory factors set forth in section 61.13001(7). Accordingly, we reverse because the trial court’s order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence....

...Nevertheless, he offered the evidence outlined above which could be seen to have shown, inter alia, how the move would have harmed the then- existing father-children relationship. 7 the trial court should have proceeded. Section 61.13001(3) requires the petition to comply with the pleading requirements of the statute, including specifically “[a] proposal for the revised postrelocation schedule for access and time-sharing together with a proposal for the postrelocation transportation arrangements necessary to effect time-sharing with the child[ren].” § 61.13001(3)(a)(6), Fla....

...re 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b., which provides jurisdiction in family law matters to review non-final orders determining “the rights or obligations of a party regarding child custody.” file a petition to relocate with the couple’s minor child under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017)....

...ent. In turn, Mother filed an emergency motion for child pick-up order, alleging that Father refused to return the child following his timesharing pursuant to the court ordered make-up visitation. The trial court ruled in favor of Mother. Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017), governs “[p]arental relocation with a child.” It provides, in relevant part: (2) Relocation by agreement.— (a) If the parents and every other person entitled to acces...

...ust file a petition to relocate and serve it upon the other parent, and every other person entitled to access to or time-sharing with the child. The pleadings must be in accordance with this section . . . . § 61.13001(2)–(3), Fla....

...e a petition to relocate. The central issue on appeal is whether the parties’ agreement authorized Mother to temporarily relocate with the parties’ child pending final dissolution proceedings, without filing a petition to relocate pursuant to section 61.13001(3). Father contends that the parties’ agreement was not an agreement for relocation, but rather it was merely a stipulated contact schedule. We find no error in the trial court’s disinclination to engage in such semantics. The parties’ agreement complied with the mandates of section 61.13001(2). The agreement reflects that Father consented to temporary relocation: Mother resided in Michigan and the agreement provided that the child would remain in her custody and possibly attend school in Michigan. See § 61.13001(2)(A)1., Fla. Stat. The agreement defines Father’s timesharing, detailing his rights over summer and winter breaks. See id. § 61.13001(2)(A)2. The agreement also provides transportation arrangements, requiring Father to both pick up and return the child in Michigan. See id. § 61.13001(2)(A)3. Once ratified by the court, it became a temporary child custody order. Therefore, the agreement complied with the requirements of section 61.13001(2), and Mother was not required to subsequently file a petition to relocate. See id. § 61.13001(2)–(3). We note, however, that the agreement at issue is temporary, pending final dissolution proceedings....

...the children on or about February 5, 2009. According to the appealed order, a certified copy of the notice of intent to relocate with the children was served on Porras on February 10, 2009, and no objection was filed. [1] Accordingly, as required by section 61.13001(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2009), the trial court entered the order allowing the relocation, established a post-relocation schedule of visitation and transportation scheme and, finally, reserved jurisdiction to modify or enforce the order....

...*1190 Upon examination of the appealed order, we issued an order directing Porras to show cause why we should not summarily affirm the appeal because, after having been served with the notice of intent to relocate with the children, Porras offered no objection as required by section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). A. The first error apparent on the face of the record is that Mother’s petition was legally insufficient.2 A relocation petition “must be in accordance with” the relocation statute. § 61.13001(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (emphasis added). Substantial compliance is not enough. See Wing v. Wing, 129 So. 3d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Former Wife was obliged to comply strictly with the requirements of section 61.13001(3).”). The statute mandates that if a parent wants to relocate “based upon a job offer that has been reduced to writing,” then “the written job offer must be attached to the petition.” § 61.13001(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. Here, no job offer was attached. Also, the statute requires the petition to include a proposal for a revised timesharing schedule. § 61.13001(3)(a)6., Fla....

...The trial court also ruled in its final judgment that in the event Wife’s application for citizenship is denied, she would be permitted to take the child with her to the Philippines. In making its ruling, the trial court did not comply with the dictates of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017). It reasoned the section did not apply to persons forced to relocate due to deportation. Analysis Husband failed to file the trial transcript, thus we review for fundamental error apparent on the face of the judgment. See P.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 68 So. 3d 421, 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). A. Parental Relocation with a Child The trial court committed fundamental error when it found that section 61.13001 (titled “Parental relocation with a child”) “applies only to persons wishing to relocate voluntarily, not those who are forced to do so by the government following a change in their marital status.” Subsection (7) of the...

...against a request to relocate with the child does not arise if a parent or other person seeks to relocate and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person.” § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...h-all “[a]ny other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13.” Id. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2017), deals with child support, parenting plans and time-sharing schedules. There is no language in either section 61.13001 or section 61.13 granting a presumption in favor of a request to relocate with the child merely because the parent’s relocation was involuntary, let alone language suggesting the sections are inapplicable. Although Wife may have little choice with respect to her relocation due to a deportation order, this does not lead to the conclusion that she is entitled, without an inquiry pursuant to section 61.13001, to relocate with the child. 2  In addition to the trial court’s fundamental error of making a distinction between voluntary and involuntary parental relocation that is not supported by the...

...und. Indeed, a trial court is not equipped with a “crystal ball” that enables it to prophetically determine whether future relocation is in the best interests of a child. Any one of the various factors outlined in section 61.13001(7) that the trial court is required to consider, such as the financial stability of a parent or the suitability of the new location for the child, could change within the extended time period given by the court before relocation....

...involuntary relocation of Wife. For example, if Wife learns that her application for citizenship has been denied and has good cause to believe that her involuntary relocation from the United States is imminent, she can file a petition to relocate with her daughter pursuant to section 61.13001(3). As to the award of durational alimony, we reverse and remand with the instruction to reduce the period during which Wife may receive this type of alimony to no more than twenty-six months....

...ther and his blended family pending a final hearing. By virtue of the trial court’s thorough assessment of the issues surrounding the best interest of the children favoring placing them with the Father and the Father’s attempt to comply with section 61.13001(3)(a)(6), Florida Statute (2024), we affirm the trial court’s temporary order granting the relocation. This appeal concerns the trial court’s temporary order permitting the Father to relocate the parties’ two minor children to South Carolina pending final hearing....

...The children had lived with the Father since birth in the 2 Florida Keys. On March 26, 2024, the trial court issued an order denying the Mother’s relocation, finding: Upon considering and weighing the factors in Florida statute 61.13001 the court finds that the majority of the factors do not favor either parent....

...Statutes). On appeal, the Mother argues that Father’s petition to relocate was legally insufficient claiming that the Father failed to include a revised postrelocation schedule and a proposal for postrelocation transportation pursuant to section 61.13001(3)(a)(6), Florida Statute (2024), relying heavily 7 on Vanderhoof v....

...hearing, citing to Mata v. Mata, 75 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). However, the Mother filed an untimely objection to the Father’s petition on July 23, 2024 when the Father’s petition had been filed on June 14, 2024, as admitted by the Mother on appeal. Section 61.13001(3)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (2024), provides in capital letters: A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION OBJECTING TO RELOCATION MUST BE MADE IN WRITING, FILED WITH THE 8  COURT, AND SERVE...

...g monthly child support. Subsequently, Former Husband, who lost his teaching job in Florida, received a job offer in Virginia, where his extended family resides. He petitioned the trial court to relocate the minor children to Virginia pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2015)....

...Indeed, a trial court is not equipped with a “crystal ball” that enables it to prophetically determine whether future relocation is in the best interests of a child. Any one of the various factors outlined in section 61.13001(7) that the trial court is required to consider, such as the financial stability of a parent or the suitability of the new location for the child, could change within the extended time period given by the court before relocation. Id....

...uld have visitations from morning to early evening two days every week and on a third day every other week. Also included in the parenting plan was that, if either party wished to relocate, the party must do so subject to the procedures set forth in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2018)....

...court reversibly erred in denying her petition for relocation. An order on a petition for relocation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the appellate court considers whether competent, substantial evidence supports the court’s findings under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. Muller v. Muller, 964 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). While there is no presumption in favor of or against allowing relocation, the party seeking to relocate carries the burden to prove the move is in the child’s best interest. See § 61.13001(7)-(8), Fla....

...had occurred. Id. at 367 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original). Here, under the final judgment of dissolution, the parties were prohibited from moving more than fifty miles from their present residence without following the provisions of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. While Appellant did notify Appellee of her intention to move a month before the relocation, she did not secure his written consent or file a formal petition, as required. § 61.13001(3), Fla....

WOLF, J. Appellant raises two points on appeal. We find one has merit. The trial court’s order fails to address the statutory factors set out in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...“when each child, as a matter of fact, emancipates as determined either by parental agreement, Rabbi Janoski and Sharon Levine, or by Court order.” 2 removed the children from the jurisdiction without filing a petition for relocation. See § 61.13001(3), Fla....

...Florida Statutes; 3. A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior court approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

..._____ A party, or someone acting on a party’s behalf, is expected to wrongfully remove or is wrongfully removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without prior approval or compliance with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. 3....

...evidence and the proper inference to be drawn from the ruling is that the trial court found relocation to be in the best interest of the child, based on conditions now known and reasonably foreseeable. She submits that in analyzing the factors under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), which governs the request for relocation, the trial court found that the majority of the factors supported the move....

...re his child support obligation. I also concur in the affirmance of the remaining provisions in the final judgment with the exception of the provision authorizing the Wife's prospective relocation with the minor child to the state of Michigan. Under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006), the court must consider the following factors prior to reaching a decision on a parent's request for permanent relocation: (a) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relat...

...ehabilitation. (k) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13. The parent wishing to relocate bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the child's best interests. § 61.13001(8)....

...The court thus denied the Wife's request for immediate relocation but authorized relocation when the child reaches three years of age. I read this portion of the final judgment to be a determination that relocation was not in the child's best interests as of the day of trial. Section 61.13001 does not give the trial court the authority to deny a request for relocation if relocation is in the child's best interests....

...We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(c)(iii). . Former Wife delivered the children to Former Husband in compliance with the ex parte order. . There was no prohibition in the final judgment against relocation. Furthermore, section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes (2014), which requires a parent to either obtain consent from the other parent or a court order before relocating with a child, was not implicated because Former Wife’s relocation was less than 50 miles from her principal place of residence. See § 61.13001(l)(e), Fla....

...We reverse and remand. A trial court may grant a temporary order permitting the relocation of minor children if, based on the evidence from a preliminary hearing, there is a likelihood that the court will approve the relocation at a final hearing. § 61.13001(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019). When making its relocation determination, a trial court must consider statutory factors listed in sections 61.13(3) and 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes....

...he child’s residence to Wisconsin. The trial court approved the report and recommendation, and Ms. Burt appealed. There is a clear distinction between modification based on changed circumstances under section 61.13(3) and relocation under section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes....

...circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child.” This section also includes a list of factors to be considered in determining whether such a change in circumstances has occurred. A petition for relocation under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2013), on the other hand, requires a completely different procedure with specific statutory requirements governing the content of the petition, service on the other parent, burdens of proof, and factors to be considered by the court. In the instant case, Mr. Fosshage’s petition, although couched in the language of section 61.13(3), was in essence a petition for relocation under section 61.13001. Thus, the trial court erred in not following the dictates of that statute. 3  Accordingly, we reverse the order entered below and remand for proceedings under section 61.13001. 4 

...Abramowitz, for appellee. Before WELLS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant Justo Manuel Garcia appeals the trial court’s “Order Granting Mother’s Petition for Relocation with Minor Child,” granting relocation pursuant to section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes....

...parties' minor children. Burgess raises several issues, none of which warrant reversal. The record supports the trial court's determination that she did not carry her burden to show that relocation is in the best interests of the minor children. See § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...The primary issue on appeal is whether the simultaneous denial of the father’s petition for relocation and grant of extended long-distance timesharing produces an irreconcilable inconsistency and runs afoul of Hull v. Hull, 273 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), and section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2022)....

...The first is the unyielding principle that the polestar consideration in any timesharing award is the best interests of the child. See Burgess v. Burgess, 347 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The second is the parental relocation statute, codified in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...interest of the [child], the court need not independently address each of the listed factors, but the court must make a finding that the timesharing schedule is in the best interest of the [child]. Id. at 812 (internal citations omitted). First enacted in 2006, section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, governs parental relocation....

...The statute has been amended on multiple occasions and currently defines relocation as a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent at least fifty miles away from his or her place of residence at the time of the last order establishing timesharing. § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat. The statute extends no presumption in favor of or against relocation. Instead, the parent seeking to change residence must initially prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interests of the child. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

...Assuming this burden is satisfied, the non-relocating parent must then demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interests. Id. The factors relevant to the trial court’s analysis are enumerated in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. 5  The statute appears to uniquely target those previously deemed “primary residential parent[s].” Raulerson v....

...3d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This is evidenced by the fact that the statute vests the trial court with discretion to “order contact with the nonrelocating parent,” but contains no corresponding provision for contact with the relocating parent. § 61.13001(9)(a), Fla. Stat. The proper construction, however, has been the subject of some debate, and the Florida Supreme Court has yet to provide clear guidance. See Raulerson, 60 So. 3d at 489 (“Section 61.13001 delineates the requirements a primary residential parent must follow before relocating with a minor child . . . . [T]he primary residential parent must file a petition to relocate and receive permission from the circuit court to relocate.”); Brooks v. Brooks, 164 So. 3d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[T]he definition [in section 61.13001] excludes any reference to the relocating parent being the primary residential parent ....

...that, “[w]hile the trial court pragmatically believed that a long[-]distance parenting plan between the parties would need to be adopted, it correctly recognized in its final judgment that, because it denied [the] petition to relocate, there was no mechanism under section 61.13001 to allow it to grant such relief.” Id....

...g Brittany Meizlik’s petition to relocate with the couple’s daughter. Among the issues raised on appeal, Clark claims the language contained in the long-distance parenting plan approved by the trial court does not comply with the requirements of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2018)....

...that incorporated a long-distance parenting plan. However, that parenting plan included a provision that “any additional relocation of [daughter] outside of Vero Beach or St. Augustine is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes [the relocation statute].” Clark’s appeal of this final judgment, and parenting plan therein, followed. This court has previously stated that: “[T]he [appellate] court reviews the trial court’s de...

...2 hearing. Based on the record, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s final judgment such that it did not abuse its discretion when it granted the petition for relocation after considering the factors in section 61.13001(7). However, “[t]he question of whether the trial court properly applied the relocation statute [section 61.13001, Florida Statutes] is a matter of law, reviewed de novo.” Id. (citing Milton v. Milton, 113 So. 3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)). Section 61.13001(1)(e) defines “relocation” as: a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or mo...

...The change of location must be at least 50 miles from that residence, and for at least 60 consecutive days not including a temporary absence from the principal residence for purposes of vacation, education, or the provision of health care for the child. § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Clark argues that the following language in the long-distance parenting plan does not comply with the “fifty-mile” requirement within section 61.13001: “any additional relocation of [daughter] outside of Vero Beach or St. Augustine is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes.” Under section 61.13001(1)(e), a parent or individual whom a child resides with, need only file a petition to relocate if they wish move fifty miles or more away from their current residence....

relocate without meeting the requirements of Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, and since it finds that

...The order may be issued in an expedited manner without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. If a response is timely filed, the parent or other person may not relocate, and must proceed to a temporary hearing or trial and obtain court permission to relocate. § 61.13001(3)(d), Fla....

...and include the specific factual basis supporting the reasons for seeking a prohibition of the relocation, including a statement of the amount of participation or involvement the objecting party currently has or has had in the life of the child.” § 61.13001(5), Fla....

to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes.” In November 2015

...Appellant, Christine Conners, appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. We agree with appellant that the trial court, in ordering her to return to Tallahassee with the parties' child, employed an incorrect legal standard. In evaluating the child's best interests pursuant to section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, the trial court primarily focused on how it would have ruled on the issue of relocation had it been faced with the issue prior to appellant's move to Albany, New York, which occurred while appellant was pregnant with the parties' child....

...However, because the relocation had already occurred when appellee, Shawn Mullins, petitioned for relief, the pertinent question was not whether the trial court would have permitted the relocation in the first place but whether the actual relocation was in the child's best interests pursuant to the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7)....

...ng to a rehabilitative plan accepted by the court, so that he or she may better support himself or herself after dissolution of marriage. Relocation—a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person in accordance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, Respondent—the person who is served with a petition requesting some legal action against him or her....

...ION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH DEPENDENT OR MINOR CHILD(REN) AND RELOCATION (02/18) When should this form be used? This form should be used when you are filing for dissolution of marriage, there are dependent or minor children, and pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes: 1....

...This form or a similar form should be used in the development of a Parenting Plan. If the case involves supervised time-sharing, the Supervised/Safety Focused Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(b) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then a Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...e providing protection for the child(ren). If safety or supervised time-sharing is not a concern, Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family-Law Form 12.995(a) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...ing to a rehabilitative plan accepted by the court, so that he or she may better support himself or herself after dissolution of marriage. Relocation- a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person in accordance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. General Information for Self-Represented Litigants (02/18) - 16 - Respondent - the person who is served with a petition requesting some legal action against him...

...MINOR CHILD(REN) AND RELOCATION (02/18) When should this form be used? This form should be used when you are filing for dissolution of marriage, there are dependent or minor children, and pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes: 1....

...{If applicable} The following other person is an individual who is not a parent but with whom the child resides pursuant to a court order, or who has the right of access to, time-sharing with, or visitation with the child(ren)__________________________________________________________. 3. Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: a....

...ce established in the final judgment or last modification thereof. This relocation is for a period of 60 consecutive days or more, not including any absence for purposes of vacation, education, or health care for the child(ren). Pursuant to Section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes, the following information is provided: a....

...This form or a similar form should be used in the development of a Parenting Plan. If the case involves supervised time-sharing, the Supervised/Safety Focused Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(b) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then a Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used....

...Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. XV....

...e providing protection for the child(ren). If safety or supervised time-sharing is not a concern, Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(a) or a similar form should be used. If the case involves relocation, pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, then Relocation/Long Distance Parenting Plan, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.995(c) or a similar form should be used. The parents must identify a name or designation to be used throughout this Parenting Plan. This form should be typed or printed in black ink....

...Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XII. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes. XIII....

...plemental final judgment, each of which we find to be without merit and decline to discuss further. 2  On September 6, 2019, Father filed a petition to permit relocation with the minor child pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, to which Mother objected....

...3d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (emphasis omitted). Mother argues that the trial court reversibly erred by granting the 3 relocation of the minor child without evaluating the statutory factors contained in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2020)....

...bstantial competent evidence.’” (quoting Cecemski v. Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007))). In the instant case, the trial court granted Father’s petition to relocate without making any findings as to the statutory factors in section 61.13001(7). Pursuant to section 61.13001(7), when a petition for relocation is contested a court “shall evaluate all” of the statutory factors when making its determination that the relocation is in the best interests of the child. See § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...the petition based on the evidence presented. Having reviewed the trial court’s order, and the record evidence upon which it was based, we find that the trial court properly considered and applied the requisite and applicable factors set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2014), and articulated findings of fact that are supported by competent substantial evidence....

...it tried by consent. It should not have been included in the order denying relocation. 1 See Scariti v. Sabillon, 16 So.3d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Further, such a geographical restriction is contrary to the provisions of the relocation statute. See § 61.13001(l)(e), Fla....

...her order of the court. Any substantial changes to the Parenting Plan must be sought through the filing of a supplemental petition for modification. XIV. RELOCATION Any relocation of the child(ren) is subject to and must be sought in compliance with section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928, 935 (Fla.2005); Bazan v. Gambone, 924 So.2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review denied, No. SC06-892, 944 So.2d 344 (Fla.2006); Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA *1171 1993). [3] Affirmed. NOTES [1] Under the now-applicable statute, § 61.13001, Fla....

...he parties proceeded to trial. At the trial, the parties presented evidence regarding the children’s current living situation and how relocation would affect them. After considering the evidence as applied to the statutory factors set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2012), the court provided a detailed ruling granting Mother’s petition for relocation. After the court issued its oral ruling on relocation, Father’s counsel raised the issue of child support, arguing th...

...THOMAS, J. Appellant (the Father) appeals a non-final order denying his emergency verified motion to compel Appellee (the Mother) to return the parties’ minor children to Florida. We affirm the trial court’s order, which correctly found that section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2013), Florida’s relocation statute, did not apply, as the Mother moved to Georgia before the Father filed for dissolution.  The Father filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and other relief on February 21, 2014....

...compel the Mother to return their minor children to Florida. The motion alleged that the Mother had removed the two minor children from Florida and moved to Fort Valley, Georgia, in January 2014, without the Father’s consent or leave of the court, in violation of section 61.13001....

...orgia, and requested that the trial court order the children’s return to this jurisdiction and enter a temporary parenting plan awarding the Father majority timesharing. The trial court denied the Father’s emergency motion, finding that section 61.13001 was inapplicable, because it only applied to a child’s relocation or proposed relocation during a pending proceeding....

...'s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.’” Borden, 921 So. 2d at 595 (quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 898 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005)). The relevant language in section 61.13001 is located within the definition of the word “relocation,” and states in pertinent part: (1) Definitions.-- As used in this section, the term: .... (e) “Relocation” means a change in the location of the...

...The change of location must be at least 50 miles from that residence, and for at least 60 consecutive days not including a temporary absence from the principal residence for purposes of vacation, education, or the provision of health care for the child. § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla....

...relocation statute applies only where a parent’s principal place of residence changes “at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing” (which is not applicable here), or “at the time of filing the pending action.” § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat. The Mother’s location was already in Georgia when the Father filed the pending action; as such, in accordance with section 61.13001, she did not have to seek permission from the Father or the court to move there. We note that this court’s plain reading of section 61.13001 is in accordance with the interpretation of at least two other districts....

...3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); A.F. v. R.P.B., 100 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). In Essex, the Fourth District addressed the relocation statute in the context of a paternity proceeding. 116 So. 3d at 446. Based upon the definition of relocation under section 61.13001(1)(e), and citing the Second District’s opinion in A.F....

...4 petition to determine paternity or any order establishing or modifying time-sharing, then she is not subject to the relocation statute.” Id. at 448 (emphasis supplied); see also, A.F., 100 So. 3d at 72 (holding that section 61.13001 did not apply to court's decision awarding the father majority timesharing, as the father was not relocating and already resided in Pennsylvania when the mother's petition for majority timesharing and the father's counterpetition...

...Further, in dissolution proceedings, the court may approve a parenting plan that would determine, inter alia, time-sharing in accordance with the child’s best interests. See § 61.13(2), Fla. Stat. Here, the trial court correctly determined that section 61.13001 is inapplicable under the facts of this case....

...rties’ remaining marital assets and debts. In the final judgment, the trial court made detailed findings based on the statutory factors relevant to the dissolution under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, and the factors relevant to relocation under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes....

...ducted child. The trial court, however, decided to excuse Wife’s conduct, finding that she had merely relied on bad legal advice. Husband also argues that the trial court failed to apply the correct standards in evaluating the issue of relocation. Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), titled “Parental relocation with a child,” establishes the procedures involved in the relocation of a child, whether relocation is sought after agreement between the parties or alternatively contested by one party....

...r against a request to relocate with the child when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelo-cating parent or other person.” § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). Instead, section 61.13001(8), states: The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proof if an objection is filed and must then initiate a proceeding seeking court permission for relocation....

...relocation is not in the best interest of the child. In addition to the burden that the parties must meet, the statute outlines multiple factors a trial court must consider before reaching a decision on a parent’s request for permanent relocation. § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). Here, the trial court considered the factors under sections 61.13(8) and 61.13001(7) and made written findings concerning those factors....

...trial court’s decision. See Berrebbi v. Clarke, 870 So.2d 172, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Kuntz v. Kuntz, 780 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Here, there is some evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Husband additionally argues that under section 61.13001(6)(c), it was error for the trial court to give weight to the child’s temporary relocation as a factor in reaching its final decision. Section 61.13001(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), provides: If the court has issued a temporary order authorizing a party seeking to relocate or move a child before a final judgment is rendered, the court may not give any weight to the temporary relocation as a factor in reaching its final decision....

...The Wife testified to a new and promising relationship with David P. and a positive relationship between him and the minor child. The parties are also able to connect with close family members on a regular basis. There is no case law that interprets section 61.13001(6)(c), nor is there any legislative history that would explain the inclusion of subsection (6)(c). Oddly, section 61.13001(6)(c) expressly requires the court, in making a temporary relocation decision, to examine evidence and weigh the same factors that are pertinent to a final relocation decision....

...It seems inevitable, even necessary, for the court to take into account the events of a temporary relocation (good and bad) in evaluating and applying the statutory factors. After examining the record and the appealed order, we conclude that the limitations in section 61.13001(6)(c) were not violated....

...The father of a ten-year old appeals from an order granting her mother's petition to relocate her from Miami, where the father lives, to California. Far from embodying the abuse of discretion which would be required for reversal of an order like this one entered pursuant to Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2010), see Muller v....

ad litem address the statutory factors in section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes when addressing whether

...Lehton did not recommend relocation and that it “ha[d] concern regarding the emotional health of these children, and their continued relationship with both of these parties.” Notably, the order was devoid of any finding that relocation would be in the best interest of the children. Section 61.13001(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), authorizes a trial court to grant a temporary order permitting relocation of a child....

...against a request to relocate with the child does not arise if a parent or other person seeks to relocate and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person.” § 61.13001(7), Fla....

...itation. (k) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13. Id. The parent wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. § 61.13001(8), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the trial court’s order allowing Appellee to temporarily relocate out-of-state with the minor children during the dissolution proceedings. We affirm. We find that Appellant’s argument regarding section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), was not preserved for our review....

...5th DCA 1993)(holding that as a general rule of appellate procedure, based on practical necessity and fairness to the opposing party and the trial judge, issues that are not timely raised will not be considered on appeal). Appellant made no mention of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), or its procedural requirements during any proceeding below, or in his motion to stay the trial court’s order in this court....

...There, interpreting a since-amended version of chapter 61, we clarified the standard for a trial court to apply in ruling on a petition to modify a custody order. The mother interprets our decision in Wade as having acknowledged a court’s discretion to 4. Petitions to relocate a child are governed by section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2020). - 14 - anticipate contingencies and account for them in a parenting plan on the front end.5 In our view, this is not the case in which to resolve the parties’ dis...

...When unable to reach agreement on the delegation, either parent may request an expedited court hearing for a determination on the designation. Subsection (7) of the statute provides that “[t]his section does not apply to permanent change of station moves by military personnel, which shall be governed by s. 61.13001.” § 61.13002(7), Fla. Stat. In turn, section 61.13001, although entitled “Parental relocation with a child” (emphasis added), defines “relocation” as “a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person,” which must be “at least 50 miles from” the previous principal residence and “for at least 60 consecutive days.” § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla....

...assignment to Guam was a permanent change of station within the meaning of section 61.13002(7), rendering section 61.13002 inapplicable. See § 61.13002(7), Fla. Stat. (“This section does not apply to permanent change of station moves by military personnel, which shall be governed by s. 61.13001.”). We therefore reverse this provision of the order and remand for further proceedings under section 61.13001. 3 The order on appeal resolves numerous other issues between the parties, stopping short of dissolving the marriage; but the only presently appealable provision that the mother challenges is the designation for timesharing....

...at the former PDS, beginning duty at a new PDS, or further temporary duty. See The Joint Travel Regulations, App. A, at 34. The father’s assignment satisfies the military definition of a “permanent change of station” as used in section 61.13002(7), making section 61.13001 controlling....

...The dissolution judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement and parenting plan which, among other things, awarded the parties 50-50 timesharing and shared parental responsibility. In November 2021, Mother moved from St. Lucie County to Indian River County, which was within the 50-mile radius permitted under section 61.13001(1)(e), Florida Statutes....

...2d DCA 2010) (determining that when there is no transcript of the relocation hearing so that the appellate court is unable to determine if competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings, the order must be upheld unless it is erroneous as a matter of law). We agree with the Former Husband that section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2011), does not contemplate a “temporary” relocation order of three years’ duration with the resulting substantial delay in holding a final hearing and rendering a final order....

...Rather, in seeking the temporary order the Former Wife asserted that she could not wait for the final hearing because it would be in the children’s best interest to move to Brisbane, Australia, during their winter break from school before the Former Wife began her new job in January. Section 61.13001(6)(b) allows a trial court to grant a temporary relocation order “pending final hearing.” To grant a temporary relocation the trial court must find [f]rom an examination of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, that there is a likelihood that on final hearing the court will approve the relocation of the child, which findings must be supported by the same factual basis as would be necessary to support approving the relocation in a final judgment. § 61.13001(6)(b)(2) (emphasis added). The statute provides for priority scheduling for a hearing or trial and requires a hearing on a motion for temporary relocation to occur, absent good cause, no later than thirty days after the motion is filed. § 61.13001(10)....

...ife of the Mother’s employment contract” and that “[a] permanent hearing will be held at the expiration of the 36-month period.” The trial court erred as a matter of law in requiring the temporary order to stay in effect for three years when section 61.13001 provides that temporary orders are preliminary short-term orders and that final hearing occur within ninety days of a notice of nonjury trial. See § 61.13001(6)(b), (10)....

...The parties have found no case with a similar long-term temporary order, but analogous cases show that the trial court must make a timely, final determination based on the present facts. In Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So.3d 454, 455 (Fla.2010), the Florida Supreme Court addressed section 61.13001 in a situation where the trial court had delayed permanent relocation of a sixteen-month-old child until the child turned three years old....

...We cannot tell from our limited record what the cost of travel would be, but it seems likely that travel to and from Australia would have a significant effect on the parties’ finances. In making a determination on final hearing, the court must consider whether the travel is feasible based on the parties’ resources. See § 61.13001(7)(c) (requiring the trial court to evaluate the financial circumstances when considering the substitute arrangements)....

...If permanent relocation is allowed, the final order also must allocate the transportation costs and “may adjust the child support award, as appropriate, considering the costs of transportation and the respective net incomes of the parents in accordance with the state child support guidelines schedule.” See § 61.13001(9)(b)....

...the parties with shared parental responsibility of their two children, Dustin Tillotson, born July 2, 1991, and B.T., born August 3, 1995. In November 2008 and March 2009 both parties filed a "notice of intent to relocate with children" pursuant to section 61.13001(3), Florida Statutes (2008), and the matter was heard August 24, 2009....

...less the order is fundamentally erroneous on its face."). We find that the trial court erred as a matter of law in entering the order of relocation as to the parties' son, Dustin Tillotson, who was no longer a minor child at the time of the hearing. Section 61.13001(1)(b) defines "child" as "any person who is under the jurisdiction of a state court pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act or is the subject of any order granting to a parent or other person any right...

...nes "child" as "an individual who has not attained 18 years of age." § 61.503(2). Because Dustin Tillotson was eighteen years old at the time of the hearing, he no longer qualified as a child under the UCCJEA and was not subject to relocation under section 61.13001....