Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
Can a temporary relocation be granted in a Florida child custody case without a hearing? Statutes require that certain language be included in a petition for relocation, part of which states “IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY OBJECT TO THE RELOCATION, THE RELOCATION WILL BE ALLOWED, UNLESS IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE AND WITHOUT A HEARING.” See Fla. Stat. Chp. 61.13001. This was an issue in the case Lawler v. Lawler, 3D24-1428 (Fla. 3d DCA June 4, 2025).
In the parties’ divorce judgment, the father was granted primary time-sharing with the parties children, who resided primarily with the father since birth. The father was remarried, and both mother and father were active duty members of the military service. The trial court previously denied the mother’s petition for relocation and found it was in the best interest of the children to remain with the father primarily. The father was granted 305 days of timesharing per year while the mother was granted summer timesharing.
The father was ordered to move to South Carolina, which was closer to the mother. He filed a petition for relocation, and sought a temporary relocation order in light of a deadline imposed by his employer for him to move. The mother filed her objection to the petition more than 20 days after service. The trial court granted the order for temporary relocation without a hearing, citing it prior finding that it was in the best interest of the children to continue to reside primarily with the father, the fact that the timesharing schedule would not change, and with this move, the children would actually be a closer distance to the mother. The mother appealed.
On appeal, the mother argued the father failed to provide a post-relocation schedule. But the appellate court noted that he requested that the same schedule remain in place. The mother also argued it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the order without a hearing, but the appellate court noted “[T]he 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.” The court concluded “Despite the plain language of the statute, the Mother argues “‘the best interest standard precludes a determination merely on the basis of a parent’s default,’ citing to Vaelizadeh v. Hossaini, 174 So. 3d 579 (4th DCA 2015) (emphasis added). Unlike in Vaelizadeh, the trial court’s determination temporarily granting the relocation in favor of the Father was not based on the parent’s default as the trial court did not acknowledge the tardiness of the objection. Instead, the determination was based on the trial court’s thorough findings of the best interest of the children to allow the Father to temporarily relocate the children to South Carolina, supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, and any error was therefore harmless.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.