Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

Temporary relocation in Florida is governed by Florida Statute Chp. 61.13001. A temporary relocation can be granted pending a final hearing if the court finds it is in the best interest of a child to relocate and it is likely that permanent relocation will be granted. There are strict requirements for seeking and considering relocation. This was an issue in the case Vanderhoof v. Armstrong, 5D23-1486 (Fla. 5th DCA March 22, 2024).

The parties previously were ordered to abide by a parenting plan which granted the mother 60% time-sharing with the children and 40% with the father. The mother filed a petition for relocation and requested an expedited temporary relocation order citing her husband’s military orders placing him in another location. The mother had a baby with her husband and requested that she be permitted to relocate with the children in this case because she wanted to be with her husband and baby. She did not provide any evidence of how the move would be in the best interest of the children, could not name any schools she looked into in the new location and admitted she had no family or friends in the new location. Despite this, the trial court granted the request for temporary relocation. The father appealed.

The appellate court noted “A trial court’s failure to make oral or written statutory findings hampers appellate review. [internal citation omitted]. However, there is nothing in this statute that requires the trial court to make specific findings. ‘Although findings of fact are always helpful to reviewing courts, we will defer to the legislative intent which we glean to be that they are not required here.” Hardwick v. Hardwick, 710 So. 2d 124, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the trial court considered any of the statutory factors other than that relocation was sought in good faith, which is insufficient by itself to support relocation.” The court reversed, holding “[The mother’s] 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.”

The court also noted that the mother’s petition was insufficient where she did not include a proposed post-relocation schedule or transportation arrangements. The court held “Mother’s petition offered nothing that could be recognized as a post-relocation proposal, as it said only that the trial court should determine same. Failure to provide a proposed post-relocation plan as called for in the just cited subsection ‘renders the petition to relocate legally insufficient.’ Id. Given the legal insufficiency of Mother’s petition, we find the trial court reversibly erred in granting same.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand your potential rights and remedies.