Florida Timesharing & Parenting Plans: 2023 Law and 50/50 Presumption

Florida Timesharing & Parenting Plans: What the Law Requires

Florida no longer uses "custody" or "visitation" in its statute. The legislature replaced that vocabulary with two concepts that drive every parenting case: **parental responsibility** (who makes the big decisions) and **timesharing** (who has the child on which days). Both live in Florida Statute § 61.13, both reshaped by Senate Bill 1416, effective July 1, 2023.

The biggest shift is a new rebuttable presumption that **equal timesharing is in the best interest of the child**. That does not mean 50/50 is automatic. It means the parent who wants something other than 50/50 now carries the burden of persuasion.

This article walks through the law, the twenty best-interest factors, what a parenting plan must contain, decision-making, modification, relocation, and common disputes.

1. The 2023 equal-timesharing presumption

Before SB 1416, judges considered the statutory factors and were forbidden from starting with any presumption. New § 61.13(2)(c)(2) flips the starting point. The statute now provides that there is a **rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child**. To rebut it, a party must prove **by a preponderance of the evidence** that equal time-sharing is *not* in the child's best interests.

Three practical points:

• **Rebuttable, not automatic.** Common reasons a court finds 50/50 inappropriate include credible evidence of domestic violence, substance abuse, severe mental-health instability, geographic distance, the child's school schedule, or a long history of one parent being the sole caregiver while the other was essentially absent.
• **Preponderance, not clear and convincing.** "More likely than not" is the lowest civil standard, but a parent still needs concrete proof — specific incidents, documented patterns, third-party witnesses, records from law enforcement or DCF.
• **The presumption applies at temporary hearings, too**, and Florida appellate courts have already begun grappling with how trial courts must factor it into the best-interest analysis on modification.

"Equal" is measured in overnights across a year — a 2-2-5-5, 2-2-3, or alternating-week schedule can all hit a roughly equal count.

2. The best-interest factors in § 61.13(3)

The presumption is the **starting point**. The court still has to make a best-interest determination, and § 61.13(3) lists twenty factors the judge must consider and address in the final judgment:

1. **Capacity to facilitate a close parent-child relationship** with the other parent and honor the schedule. 2. **Anticipated division of parental responsibilities**, including third-party caregivers. 3. **Ability to act on the child's needs** rather than the parent's needs. 4. **Length of time the child has lived in a stable environment** and the desirability of continuity. 5. **Geographic viability of the parenting plan**, including travel time between residences. 6. **Moral fitness** of the parents. 7. **Mental and physical health** of the parents. 8. **Home, school, and community record** of the child. 9. **Reasonable preference** of the child, if sufficiently mature. 10. **Demonstrated knowledge** of the child's friends, teachers, providers, and activities. 11. **Demonstrated capacity to provide a consistent routine.** 12. **Capacity to communicate** with the other parent about the child. 13. **Evidence of domestic violence**, sexual violence, child abuse, abandonment, or neglect. 14. **Evidence that any party has knowingly provided false information** about an act of domestic or sexual violence. 15. **Particular parenting tasks** customarily performed by each parent. 16. **Capacity to participate in the child's school and extracurricular activities.** 17. **Capacity to maintain a substance-free environment.** 18. **Capacity to protect the child** from the ongoing litigation. 19. **Developmental stages and needs of the child**, and each parent's capacity to meet them. 20. **Any other factor** relevant to the determination.

In trial, both sides put on evidence factor by factor. Our family-law team uses a structured worksheet at the [qualifier](/qualifier) intake so we can see early which factors will be contested and which will be conceded.

3. What a parenting plan must contain

Section 61.13(2)(b) requires a parenting plan in **every case involving timesharing of a minor child**, and the statute sets a floor for what those plans must address:

• **A description of how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks** associated with the child's upbringing.
• **The time-sharing schedule arrangements** specifying the time the minor child will spend with each parent.
• **A designation of who will be responsible for** healthcare, school-related matters (including the address used for school-boundary determination), and other activities.
• **The methods and technologies** the parents will use to communicate with the child.

The Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms include a template, but the template is a floor, not a ceiling. The Fifth DCA has reversed parenting plans that fail to set out a **specific** schedule. In ***Kiswani v. Hafza***, 2025 WL 495067 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), the court held that conditioning a schedule on future events, and delegating to a therapist the decision of whether those conditions had been met, was an impermissible delegation of judicial authority in violation of § 61.13(2)(b)(2). Vague or open-ended schedules do not survive appellate review.

4. Decision-making: shared, sole, and "ultimate authority"

Florida starts with **shared parental responsibility**. Under § 61.13(2)(c), the court must order shared parental responsibility unless it finds that doing so would be **detrimental** to the child. Shared responsibility means the parents confer on major decisions — schooling, non-emergency medical care, religious upbringing, mental-health treatment.

When parents cannot agree, the court has three options:

• **Sole parental responsibility** to one parent. Reserved for true detriment — abuse, severe substance issues, or a parent who cannot make sound decisions. A conviction for a domestic-violence offense creates a rebuttable presumption that shared responsibility is detrimental.
• **Shared responsibility with ultimate decision-making authority** on specific categories (e.g., education, healthcare). Parents still consult, but if they hit an impasse, the designated parent has the final call on that topic.
• **Shared responsibility with no ultimate decision-maker.** Disputes go to the court, a parenting coordinator, or mediation.

A trial court cannot hand one parent ultimate decision-making without a record showing it is in the child's best interest. In ***Greenwood v. Greenwood***, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D450 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 19, 2025), the Third DCA reversed an order that gave a father ultimate authority over the child's school enrollment, attendance, **and** activities at a same-day emergency hearing — only days after denying his pending modification petition on the same issue. The court called it a "dramatic shift in the parenting plan" and held it violated the mother's due process rights.

5. Holidays, school zoning, religion, and healthcare

The statute requires a timesharing schedule that addresses overnights and holidays. Real parenting plans go further.

• **Holidays.** A typical plan rotates major holidays each year (odd/even), assigns specific holidays to specific parents, and addresses school breaks (Thanksgiving, winter, spring, summer). Plans that omit holiday rotation create predictable annual disputes — though, as the Third DCA noted in *Orio v. Velastegui* (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), the absence of a holiday schedule is not by itself a substantial and material change justifying later modification.
• **School zoning.** The plan must designate the parent whose address controls school registration. Without that, parents end up litigating zoning in August. A common solution is to lock the school district in the plan and require written agreement or court approval to change it.
• **Religion.** Florida courts hesitate to dictate religious upbringing. Plans typically give shared responsibility on religion, give one parent ultimate authority, or specify that each parent may expose the child to their own faith during their timesharing.
• **Healthcare.** Plans should name the child's primary care physician and specify how non-emergency care is decided. Section 61.13(1)(b) requires every child-support order to address health insurance if coverage is reasonably available — even when one parent is already paying for it.

6. Modifying an existing parenting plan

To modify a parenting plan or timesharing schedule, the moving parent must show (1) a **substantial and material change in circumstances**, and (2) that modification is in the **best interest of the child**.

The 2023 amendments removed the older requirement that the change be **"unanticipated"** at the time of the original judgment. That is a meaningful relaxation. Previously, foreseeable circumstances — a relocation, a remarriage, a job change — were routinely treated as priced-in. Today, the change still must be substantial and material, but it no longer has to be a surprise.

Even with the relaxed standard, ordinary life events usually do not clear the bar alone. Courts look for things like a long-term change in one parent's availability (new shift, serious illness, relocation), a change in the child's needs (new diagnosis, school change), a pattern of non-compliance or alienation, or substance abuse, criminal conduct, or violence that emerged after the original order.

The First DCA has emphasized that a modification petition entitles the moving parent to an **evidentiary hearing**, not a dismissal at the pleading stage, when the allegations, taken as true, would constitute a substantial and material change. One caution: a separation or breakup that was **specifically contemplated in the original agreement** is not a substantial change later on. In *Orio v. Velastegui*, the settlement agreement had built-in language about what would happen if the parties no longer lived together; the Third DCA held that fact could not later serve as the "change."

7. Relocation: where § 61.13001 intersects

If a parent wants to move more than **50 miles** from their principal residence, for **at least 60 consecutive days** (excluding temporary absences for vacation, education, or medical treatment), Florida's relocation statute, § 61.13001, takes over.

Two paths apply. By **written agreement**, both parents (and anyone else with court-ordered access) can sign and file an agreement and no contested hearing is needed. By **petition**, the relocating parent files a verified petition stating the proposed address, date of move, reasons, a revised timesharing schedule, and a transportation proposal; the non-relocating parent has a fixed window to object.

At hearing, the relocating parent carries the **initial burden** of showing the move is in good faith and serves the child's best interests. If they meet it, the burden shifts to the objecting parent. Courts weigh the child's relationship with each parent, the feasibility of preserving meaningful contact, the relocating parent's reasons, the child's age and needs, and any history of substance abuse or domestic violence. Section 61.13001(9)(b) also requires the court to allocate transportation costs and authorizes child-support adjustments to reflect them.

Relocation cases are won and lost on documentation: job-offer letters in hand, school records for the new district, housing arrangements, and a written communication plan (video calls, extended summer visits, holiday make-up time).

8. Common disputes in Florida parenting cases

A few patterns come up over and over.

**Communication apps.** Courts routinely order parents in high-conflict cases to communicate exclusively through **OurFamilyWizard** or **TalkingParents**. These platforms log every message and dramatically reduce "he said / she said" disputes.

**Communication tone.** Plans often require communication to be "business-like, child-focused, and limited to issues concerning the child." Violations end up in contempt and modification petitions.

**Supervised visitation.** Where one parent has a substance-abuse, mental-health, or domestic-violence concern, the court may order supervised visitation — but supervision cannot be **tied to the supervised parent's ability to pay** for it. *Perez v. Fay*, 160 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), reversed a judgment that made a mother solely responsible for the costs of her own supervised time-sharing, holding that "a parent's visitation rights may not be conditioned on the payment of the parent's financial obligations." Supervision costs are a childrearing expense and must be allocated as part of the support analysis.

**Right-of-first-refusal.** Many plans require the unavailable parent (often for 4 or 8 hours) to offer the time to the other parent before using a babysitter or paid care.

**Extracurriculars.** Vague clauses ("the parties shall share extracurricular costs equally") generate fights when one parent unilaterally enrolls the child in an expensive activity. Better drafting caps unilateral enrollment, requires written consent above a dollar threshold, or specifies activities.

9. What we ask in a Louis Law Group parenting intake

When a client comes in on a parenting matter — dissolution, paternity, or modification — the intake covers, at a minimum:

• The current timesharing pattern (de facto, not just what the order says) and a calendar of the last 6–12 months.
• Each parent's work schedule, commute, and availability.
• The child's school, activities, medical providers, and developmental needs.
• Existing orders, settlement agreements, parenting plans, and any pending litigation.
• Communication history — texts, emails, app logs.
• Any law-enforcement or DCF involvement, injunctions, or criminal history.
• Substance-abuse, mental-health, or domestic-violence concerns supported by more than allegation.
• Geographic considerations — current addresses, school zoning, planned moves.

That intake plugs directly into a § 61.13(3) factor map and a draft parenting plan. From there, we know whether the case is a fast settlement, a structured mediation, a contested temporary hearing, or a full trial. You can see how we structure consultations and flat-fee work on the [pricing page](/pricing) and the full menu on the [services page](/services).

Bottom line

Florida law starts from a presumption that equal timesharing serves the child's best interest, but that is a starting line, not a finish line. The court still has to walk every § 61.13(3) factor, the parenting plan still has to meet the statutory minimums in § 61.13(2)(b), modifications still require a substantial and material change, and relocation still triggers a separate process under § 61.13001.

What changed in 2023 is the **burden allocation** and the **modification standard**. Both shifts favor parents who want to share parenting time more equally, and both make it harder for the parent who wants something different to coast on assumptions about who the "primary parent" used to be. If timesharing is the case, the work has to start now: documentation, witnesses, a clean communication record, and a parenting plan draft that meets the statute on the face of the page.

---

Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and reflects Florida law as of 2026. It is not legal advice. Family-law statutes, rules of procedure, and case law change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Louis Law Group or any of its attorneys. Do not act or refrain from acting based on this content without consulting a licensed Florida attorney about your situation. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.