On July 1, 2023, Florida new child time-sharing law CS/HB 1301 went into effect, changing the language of Florida Statute 61.13. This law impacts all divorce and family law cases involving children. Family law attorneys must familiarize themselves with the revised legislation to effectively represent their clients’ interests. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the new laws, including key provisions, implications, frequently asked questions, and fictional examples to illustrate their application.
Summary of the Bill
The new law represents a pivotal shift in Florida’s child time-sharing laws. Until now, there needed to be an unanticipated change in circumstances when modifying a parenting plan or time-sharing schedule. Now, Florida Statute 61.13 deems a parent’s relocation within 50 miles as a substantial change in circumstances for modifying the time-sharing schedule. Previously a relocation was only deemed substantial if it exceeded 50 miles.
In addition to the unanticipated change, introducing the new bill presumes equal time-sharing is the best scenario for all situations. This burdens parties to prove more essential and/or better evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interests.
Background and Rights of a Parent
Florida courts believe each parent has an inherent right to their children”s companionship, care, custody, and management. Parental responsibilities encompass supervision, health and safety, education, and overall well-being. However, these rights are subject to the overriding concern for the best interests of the child when parents divorce or separate. Florida Statute §61.13 provides guidelines for determining parenting and time-sharing matters in accordance with the child”s best interests and while respecting the rights of the parents. A parenting plan is crucial for governing parental responsibilities and time-sharing schedules. The legislature emphasizes the importance of frequent and continuing contact between the child and both parents.
Until now there has been no presumption in favor of a specific time-sharing schedule, requiring the court to determine what is the best for the child. The presumption of equal time-sharing in Florida Statute §61.13 requires the party opposing equal time-sharing to provide evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interests. Furthermore, requires the court to clearly identify in writing the reasons why creating and/or modifying a specific parenting plan is in the best interest of the child. The bill also recognizes a parent’s relocation within 50 miles as a substantial change in circumstances for modifying the time-sharing schedule.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q. How does the new law impact divorce in Florida?
A. The new law alters the criteria for modifying parenting plans and time-sharing schedules. 1. It establishes a rebuttable presumption of equal time-sharing and emphasizes the child’s best interests as the primary consideration in all child custody and visitation decisions. 2. Allows for relocation within 50 miles to be deemed a major change meriting a review of the time-sharing/ parenting plan.
Q. What is the significance of the removal of the unanticipated change requirement?
A. Previously, a party seeking a modification had to demonstrate that the change in circumstances was unanticipated. With this requirement eliminated, parties can now seek modifications based on substantial and material changes in circumstances, regardless of whether they were anticipated or not. This change provides greater flexibility in addressing evolving situations that impact the child’s best interests.
Q. How does the rebuttable presumption of equal time-sharing affect parents?
A. The rebuttable presumption of equal time-sharing means that there is a legal presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child’s best interests. This presumption places the burden on the party(s) opposing equal time-sharing to provide evidence that an equal time-sharing arrangement is not in the child’s best interests. The presumption acknowledges the importance of both parents; involvement in the child’s life and sets a default expectation of equal
time-sharing unless proven otherwise.
Q. What factors does the court consider when evaluating parenting plans and time-sharing schedules?
A. The factors the Court considers are: 1. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required. 2. The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after the litigation, including the extent to which parental responsibilities will be delegated to third parties. 3. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to determine, consider, and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of the parent. 4. The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity. 5. The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling, to effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or against the relocation of either parent with a child. 6. The moral fitness of the parents. 7. The mental and physical health of the parents. 8. The home, school, and community records of the child. 9. The reasonable preference of the child if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. 10. The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be informed of the circumstances of the minor child, including, but not limited to, the child’s friends, teachers, medical care providers, daily activities, and favorite things. 11. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a consistent routine for the child, such as discipline and daily schedules for homework, meals, and bedtime. 12. The demonstrated capacity of each parent to communicate with and keep the other parent informed of issues and activities regarding the minor child and the willingness of each parent to adopt a unified front on all major issues when dealing with the child. 13. Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, regardless of whether a prior or pending action relating to those issues has been brought. If the court accepts evidence of prior or pending actions regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, the court must specifically acknowledge in writing that such evidence was considered when evaluating the best interests of the child. 14. Evidence that either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.
15. The particular parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent and the division of parental responsibilities before the institution of litigation and during the pending litigation, including the extent to which parenting responsibilities were undertaken by third parties. 16. Each parent’s demonstrated capacity and disposition to participate and be involved in the child’s school and extracurricular activities. 17. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to maintain an environment for the child free from substance abuse. 18. The capacity and disposition of each parent to protect the child from the ongoing litigation as demonstrated by not discussing the litigation with the child, not sharing documents or electronic media related to the litigation with the child and refraining from disparaging comments about the other parent to the child. 19. The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s developmental needs. 20. Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan,
including the time-sharing schedule.
Q. Can a parent’s relocation within the same city trigger a modification of the time-sharing schedule?
A. Yes, according to Florida Statute §61.13, as modified, a parent’s relocation within 50 miles of the other parent can be considered a substantial change in circumstances for the purpose of modifying the time-sharing schedule. Unlike previous requirements, the relocation does not need to be unanticipated to warrant a modification. However, the court must still determine whether the modification is in the child’s best interests, considering the statutory best interest
factors and other relevant circumstances.
Cases Examples 1.The Importance of Overcoming the Presumption: In a recent case, one parent sought equal time-sharing of their child while the other was looking
for majority time-sharing custody. The mother, who believed equal time-sharing would not be in the child’s best interests due to the father’s work schedule, must overcome the rebuttable presumption in favor of equal time-sharing. Using the evidence of the child’s specific needs and the father’s limited availability, the court determined that equal time-sharing was not in the child’s best interests. This case highlights the compelling evidence needed to overcome the presumption that equal time-sharing is in the best interest of the child.
2. Relocation and Modification
In another case, the custodial parent, the mother, relocated within 50 miles of the non-custodial father after the last time-sharing order. The mother believed the move would enhance the child’s well-being by providing a better living environment and educational opportunities. While the relocation was not unanticipated, the court recognized it as a substantial change in circumstances, modifying the time-sharing schedule to accommodate the new arrangement.
This case demonstrates how a parent’s relocation within a certain distance is now the basis for modification, even if it was not anticipated.
Conclusion
Florida’s new child time-sharing laws, enacted through Florida Statute §61.13, have introduced significant changes with an emphasis on the child’s best interests and equal time-sharing. Attorneys practicing family law in Florida must urgently familiarize themselves with the revised legislation to effectively navigate divorce cases involving children. Understanding the new law’s implications, including removing the unanticipated change requirement and creating a rebuttable presumption will empower attorneys
