Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
If a parent relocates to another state before the filing of a petition concerning child custody, is the case controlled by relocation factors in Florida Statute Chp. 61.13001? This was an issue in the case Ramos v. Hunter, 4D2025-0369 (Fla. 4th DCA March 11, 2026).
In this paternity case, the father appealed a final judgment which granted the mother majority timesharing with the parties’ children. The mother moved outside of Florida with the parties’ children before the initiation of the case. The father appealed.
The father argued two issues on appeal - (1) the court incorrectly concluded the Florida relocation statute did not apply and (2) the mother did not properly give notice via pleadings that she intended to seek majority time-sharing. On the first issue, the appellate court affirmed, holding “The circuit court correctly applied controlling precedent and concluded that section 61.13001 does not apply to this case because [the mother] moved the child before [the father] filed the paternity action. See Essex v. Davis, 116 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (explaining that under Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, the 2009 amendment changed the definition of ‘relocation’ from a change in the child’s residence to the parent’s principal residence, and holding the statute inapplicable where the parent moved prior to the filing of the action). As a result, the circuit court correctly treated [the father’s] request as part of an initial timesharing determination under Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2025).”
Regarding the second issue raised by the father, the court held “It was not until opening statement at the hearing that [the mother’s] counsel stated [the mother] was seeking majority timesharing. At that time, [the father’s] counsel objected and noted that [the mother] had not requested majority timesharing prior to the hearing. In fact, [the mother] had requested equal timesharing prior to the hearing. We acknowledge the circuit court was attempting to fulfill its statutory obligation to act in the best interest of the child. However, [the father] was entitled to notice that [the mother] intended to seek majority timesharing at the scheduled hearing. Without notice that the issue was going to be addressed at the hearing, [the father] was not prepared to present evidence in support of majority timesharing.”
Nothing in this article is legal advice. For advice specific to your case, schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.