Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

A court-ordered Florida parenting plan usually cannot be based on future, speculative events. This is because no one knows the best interest of a child for most future events. This was an issue in the recent case C.G. v. M.M., 2D19-857 (Fla. 2d DCA May 20, 2020).

The parties were never married, but after their separation they followed a voluntary parenting plan in which they divided time-sharing equally. No court order was entered on this voluntary arrangement. The mother eventually entered a new relationship and had another child with her boyfriend. Thereafter, parenting issues arose between the parties. The mother filed a petition to establish paternity, requesting the entry of a parenting plan and a child support order. Although her petition did not request relocation, at a hearing in the case, the mother testified of her desire to move to a different Florida county at some point in the future.

The trial court ultimately granted majority time-sharing to the father and ordered that if the mother relocated, the father would continue to have primary time-sharing with the mother having time-sharing only every other weekend plus divided holidays. The mother appealed arguing it was error for the court to prospectively rule on relocation when she had not requested relocation and because the relocation was a speculative event.

The appellate court agreed with the mother and reversed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court held: “We conclude that the trial court erred in addressing the best interest of the child and fashioning a prospective timesharing schedule and parenting plan based on a future event that is not ‘objectively certain to occur at an identifiable time in the future.’ [internal citation omitted]. In coming to this conclusion, we must reiterate that the mother has never filed a petition to relocate with the child. The issue was not before the trial court, and the mother was not on notice that at the paternity hearing she would have the burden, under section 61.13001(8), of establishing that relocation would be in the best interest of the child. We also agree with the mother's second argument on appeal that the trial court's order is too broad in that it allows for an automatic change to the timesharing schedule and parenting plan if the mother ‘moves out of Pinellas County’ and fails to include a timeframe for any such move. Ostensibly, under this order, if the mother remained in Pinellas County for five years but then moved anywhere outside of Pinellas County, the prospective timesharing schedule and parenting plan would go into effect without the trial court having to reconsider the best interest of the child at the time of the actual relocation in violation of chapter 61 [. . .].”

If you need help establishing a parenting plan or pursuing a Florida paternity case, schedule a consultation with a Miami paternity lawyer, and learn about how the law may apply to the facts of your case.