Florida Relocation with a Child: § 61.13001 Requirements

Florida Relocation with a Child: § 61.13001 Requirements

Florida parents move for ordinary reasons every day — but the moment a minor child is involved, **Fla. Stat. § 61.13001** reshapes everything. If the move crosses the statute's threshold and the other parent has not signed off, the relocating parent must walk through a formal court process before packing.

This guide walks through how the statute defines a relocation, the two procedural paths, what a petition must contain, the response window, the burden-shifting framework, and the 11 statutory factors a judge weighs.

What Triggers § 61.13001

Florida treats relocation as a specific legal event. Under § 61.13001(1)(e), a "relocation" is:

• A change in the principal residence of a parent or other person entitled to time-sharing,
• More than **50 miles** from that person's principal residence at the time of the last court order establishing or modifying time-sharing (or, if none exists, the time the petition for dissolution or paternity was filed),
• For **at least 60 consecutive days**, excluding temporary absences for vacation, education, or health care.

Every word matters. A summer internship four hours north of the marital home is captured. A two-week trip to see grandparents is not. A move from Coral Gables to Doral — well under 50 miles — does not trigger the statute even if the other parent objects on parenting-plan grounds. A move from Coral Gables to Naples does, even if both parents agree it is a good idea.

The reference point is the principal residence at the time of the **last order**, not the current residence. A parent who has already moved once within Florida cannot reset the clock by treating today's address as the new baseline. Confirm the distance with a measurement tool such as Google Maps before relying on the rule — a few miles can decide whether § 61.13001 applies at all.

Two Paths Through the Statute

Once a contemplated move meets the trigger, § 61.13001 gives the relocating parent exactly two procedural paths.

**Path 1 — Signed consent.** All parents and every other person entitled to time-sharing or access agree in writing; the agreement is then ratified by the court. Fast, inexpensive, avoids contested litigation.

**Path 2 — Formal petition.** If anyone with rights to the child objects (or has not signed), the relocating parent must file a petition, serve it, and litigate the move through an adversarial process.

There is no third path. A parent who moves without consent and without an order — "self-help relocation" — exposes themselves to contempt, attorney-fee awards, an order requiring the child's return, and a significant evidentiary disadvantage in any subsequent proceeding.

The Signed Consent Shortcut — § 61.13001(2)

If the parties agree, § 61.13001(2) lets them resolve the entire issue with a single written document. To qualify, the agreement must:

1. Reflect consent to the relocation; 2. Define an access or time-sharing schedule for the non-relocating parent; and 3. If applicable, describe any transportation arrangements related to access or time-sharing.

The agreement is signed by the parties and any other person entitled to access or time-sharing, then presented to the court for ratification. The court is generally required to adopt the agreement unless there is "good cause" shown for an evidentiary hearing — for example, where a guardian ad litem flags a concern, or where the proposed schedule is facially unworkable.

The shortcut is not automatic — the court must still bless it. Parents who reach a "private" agreement and never file it leave the relocating parent open to a future modification petition where the move's lawfulness can be contested years later. If you reach consent, finish the work by filing.

If your family is in this analysis but the real question is changing an existing order, you may need a separate [modification matter](/qualifier?practice=modification) before relocation procedure begins.

Petition Requirements — § 61.13001(3)

When consent is not in hand, § 61.13001(3) imposes one of the most detailed pleading requirements in Florida family law. The petition must be signed under oath and include:

• A **description of the new location**, including the specific physical address if known.
• The **mailing address** of the new residence, if different.
• The **home telephone number**, if known.
• The **date of the intended move**.
• A **detailed statement of the specific reasons** for the relocation. If based on a written job offer, the offer must be attached.
• A **proposed post-relocation schedule** for access and time-sharing, with the transportation arrangements needed to make it work.
• A **statutory notice** that the responding parent must serve an objection within 20 days, and that failure to timely respond may, absent good cause, result in the court permitting the relocation without further notice or hearing.

The petition is served using the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure governing service of process. Defective service is one of the most common reasons relocation petitions are vacated on appeal.

These pleading requirements are not boilerplate. Courts have rejected petitions that recite generic "family support" reasons without attaching the written job offer, and have stricken petitions whose proposed access schedules are so thin they are presumed not to be in good faith.

Response — 20 Days

Under § 61.13001(3)(d), the non-relocating parent has **20 days** after service of the petition to file a verified response. A timely response must:

• Specify the grounds for the objection;
• Include a statement of the amount of time the responding parent currently spends with the child; and
• Address any prior failures by the relocating parent to exercise time-sharing.

If the responding parent does not timely answer, the court may presume relocation is in the child's best interests and authorize the move without an evidentiary hearing. This is not a routine clerk default — it is a substantive presumption built into the statute. A non-relocating parent who misses the 20-day window can find the move approved on the papers alone. The presumption can be overcome only by good cause, generally excusable neglect or a procedural defect coupled with a substantive evidence-backed objection.

Temporary Relocation Orders

Sometimes the relocating parent cannot wait — a school year is starting, a job offer has a hard deadline, or a safety concern demands immediate action. Section 61.13001(6) allows a **temporary order** authorizing relocation pending the final hearing, on a sufficient showing of (1) a likelihood the court will approve the relocation on final hearing, and (2) that the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

Conversely, the court may enter a temporary order **restraining** the relocation or ordering the child's return where the move began without compliance with the statute. Temporary relief in either direction is discretionary, fact-intensive, and frequently appealed. Courts grant them sparingly; a parent who relocates on a temporary order should not assume the final order will follow.

Burden of Proof

The relocation statute uses a **burden-shifting** framework that distinguishes it from most other family-law disputes.

**Initial burden — relocating parent.** The petitioning parent must prove, **by a preponderance of the evidence**, that the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the child.

**Shifting burden — responding parent.** Once the relocating parent has carried that initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to show, also by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed relocation is **not** in the child's best interests.

Good faith runs through both sides. A move motivated by a desire to interfere with the other parent's time-sharing — to defeat visitation, frustrate the schedule, or punish the other parent — will be denied no matter how strong the economic case looks on paper.

The standard is preponderance, not "compelling reasons" or "exceptional circumstances." But the statutory factors are weighted heavily toward the child's relationship with the non-relocating parent, so a petitioner with a paper-thin proposed schedule rarely meets the burden in practice.

The 11 Statutory Factors — § 61.13001(7)

Section 61.13001(7) lists factors the court is required to evaluate in deciding the petition. Each of the following is independently considered; none is dispositive by itself:

1. **The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship** with the parent proposing the relocation and with the non-relocating parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life. 2. **The age and developmental stage of the child, the needs of the child,** and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs. 3. **The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child** through substitute arrangements — considering logistics, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the likelihood that the substitute arrangements will actually foster a continuing, meaningful relationship. 4. **The child's preference**, considering the age and maturity of the child. 5. **Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the relocating parent and the child** — economic and emotional benefits, educational opportunities, and other tangible improvements. 6. **The reasons each parent is seeking or opposing** the relocation. 7. **The current employment and economic circumstances** of each parent and whether the relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the relocating parent. 8. **Whether the relocation is sought in good faith** and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations, including child support, the marital settlement agreement, and any other court-ordered obligations. 9. **The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent** if the relocation is allowed. 10. **A history of substance abuse or domestic violence** as defined in § 741.28 or which meets the criteria of § 39.806(1)(d) by either parent — including any failure to acknowledge, complete, or comply with recommended treatment. 11. **Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child** or as set forth in § 61.13.

Two practical observations. Factor 3 — feasibility of preserving the relationship — is where most cases are won or lost. A petitioner who walks in with extended summers, alternating school breaks, all major holidays, generous video contact, and an allocation of transportation costs has a meaningfully better case than one proposing "every other weekend if the other parent can travel." Factor 8 — good faith — is the trapdoor under almost every denial; courts that suspect the move is really about ending the other parent's time-sharing will deny under factor 8 even where every other factor leans toward the move.

How § 61.13(3) Overlays the Analysis

The relocation statute does not displace Florida's general best-interest framework. Factor 11 expressly imports the broader factors in **§ 61.13(3)** — more than 20 enumerated considerations covering parental capacity, moral fitness, geographic viability of the parenting plan, mental and physical health, the developmental needs of the child, and parental misconduct.

A relocation hearing is, in substance, two hearings stacked: the relocation-specific factors plus the full § 61.13(3) best-interest analysis. Petitions that look strong on the eleven enumerated factors often collapse under § 61.13(3) considerations the petitioner never anticipated — a history of failing to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent, or an unstable housing pattern in the proposed new location.

What Florida Appellate Courts Have Recently Said

Two recent decisions illustrate how relocation petitions interact with adjacent parenting-plan disputes.

In **Greenwood v. Greenwood, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D450 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 19, 2025)**, the mother filed a relocation petition and the father responded with a counter-petition for ultimate decision-making authority over the child's education. The trial court denied both petitions — then days later, on an emergency school-enrollment motion, granted the father temporary ultimate decision-making authority that swept beyond enrollment to "attendance at school events and activities, without the need for cooperation by the mother." The Third DCA reversed, holding that the order constituted a "dramatic shift in the parenting plan" violating the mother's due-process rights. A denied relocation does not give the responding parent a free hand to rewrite shared parental responsibility through a backdoor emergency motion.

In **Gonzalez Carrasco v. Perez Jimenez, 4D23-0461 & 4D23-3105 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 5, 2025)**, the family had relocated from Venezuela to Texas and then Florida, and Florida courts were asked to give comity to a Venezuelan divorce decree. A reminder that **§ 61.13001 applies only when the underlying parenting case is in Florida**. International or out-of-state cases require careful UCCJEA, Hague Convention, and comity analysis before the relocation statute can be applied at all.

Practical Takeaways

If you are considering a relocation consult, bring as much of the following as possible:

• **The last court order** establishing or modifying time-sharing, and the **principal residence address** at the time that order was entered — the baseline for the 50-mile measurement.
• **A specific proposed new address**, or a defined area with candidate addresses. Vague "somewhere in North Carolina" plans usually have to be redone before filing.
• **A written job offer** (if applicable), school information, and housing details — lease, mortgage pre-approval, or family-support arrangements.
• **A proposed post-relocation time-sharing schedule** with realistic transportation costs calculated. The more concrete, the stronger the factor-3 case.
• **The current parenting plan** in full, and any communications with the other parent about the move. If consent is even arguably available, the § 61.13001(2) path is almost always preferable.
• **Honest assessment of the relationship history** — exchange disputes, missed time-sharing, substance abuse, domestic violence, prior modifications. These surface in any contested hearing; the petition is more credible if counsel knows them on day one.

For the non-relocating parent, the critical item is the **20-day clock**. Calendar the response deadline the moment a petition is served. A missed deadline can convert a contested hearing into near-automatic approval of the move.

Florida's relocation framework is rigid but predictable. For [typical retainer ranges](/pricing) or the [scope of family-law representation](/services) we provide across Florida, follow those links.

---

*Attorney advertising. The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Louis Law Group. Every family situation is unique, and the application of Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 to your facts depends on the specific terms of your existing orders, your geography, your child's circumstances, and the position of the other parent. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. For advice specific to your situation, consult with a licensed Florida family law attorney.*