Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
Certain factors are inherent in relocation cases such as the fact that a parent’s time-sharing will be reduced if the children are permitted to move, or that the children will leave their school and friends. Can these factors be relied upon to deny a relocation request? This was an issue in the case Harman v. Alonso, 3D24-0348 (Fla. 3d DCA October 29, 2025).
The parties originally agreed in their final judgment of divorce that the mother and the parties’ two children would relocate from California to Miami. The mother and the children did eventually move to Miami, and the mother later filed a petition to relocate back to California She alleged that the move would bring a better quality of life and stability for the children, and that she was the primary caretaker since the father often traveled for work. The father objected on the basis that the relocation would hinder his relationship with the children and that they had an extensive network of family and friends in Miami. After a trial at which the court first found that the mother met her burden of showing that relocation was in the best interest of the children, the court heard evidence from the father and concluded “he too is capable of meeting the children’s needs and provides an equally loving and nurturing environment for their growth.” The court found the father established relocation was not in the best interest of the children and denied the petition; the mother appealed.
The appellate court reversed, noting that the trial court made a finding that “‘[i]n the event this Court granted relocation, the children would be required to adapt to new schools, friends, and routines.’ But in Orta, this court made clear that ‘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.’ 66 So. 3d at 1001.”
In determining that the father was also able to meet the children’s needs and basing its denial of the relocation petition on this, the trial court relied on impermissible factors, according to the appellate court. The appellate court held “At most, this finding established only that the parties are equally able to attend to their children’s needs. This finding, that the parties’ evidence was in equipoise, means that the father failed to meet the burden, now shifted to him, to show that relocation was not in the best interest of the children.” The court concluded “Because the trial court relied on legally impermissible findings in its consideration of the statutory factors set forth in sections 61.13001(7)(g) and (k), and erroneously applied a presumption against relocation, we reverse in its entirety the order denying the mother’s petition for relocation and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Nothing in this article may be construed as legal advice since application of Florida family law is unique in each case. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply in your case.