Child Custody

Nothing in a family law case matters more than your children. Whether you are going through a divorce, were never married, or need to revisit an arrangement that no longer works, MK Law helps Fort Lauderdale parents protect their relationship with their kids and reach custody arrangements that hold up in practice.

The words Florida uses

Florida dropped the word “custody” from its family law statutes years ago, and two terms replaced it. Parental responsibility is who makes the major decisions about a child: school, non-emergency medical care, religious upbringing. Time-sharing is the schedule of when the child is with each parent. The two are decided separately, so a parent can share decision-making while the schedule is uneven, or the reverse. Every case is built around a written parenting plan, and every question in it is measured against one standard, the best interests of the child under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes.

What a parenting plan has to contain

A parenting plan is not a formality. Section 61.13(2)(b) sets a minimum the court has to approve, and a plan with gaps in it is a plan that produces arguments later. At a minimum it must:

• Describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks of raising the child
• Include the time-sharing schedule, specifying the time the child will spend with each parent
• Designate who is responsible for health care, for school-related matters including the address used for school boundary determination and registration, and for other activities
• Describe in adequate detail the methods and technologies the parents will use to communicate with the child
• Designate authorized locations for exchanging the child, unless both parents agree otherwise in writing

The plans that actually work are more specific than the statute requires. Holidays, school breaks, summer, travel out of state, who drives, how much notice a schedule change needs, and what happens when a parent is late. Every term left vague is a term someone will read in their own favor two years from now, usually at the worst possible moment.

Equal time-sharing is the starting point

Since 2023, Florida law has carried a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the best interests of the child. Section 61.13(2)(c)1 says so directly, and a parent who wants a schedule other than 50/50 has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child's best interests. The presumption is a starting point rather than a guarantee. Unless the parents agree on a schedule and the court approves it, the judge still has to evaluate every statutory factor and make specific written findings of fact when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule. What the 2023 change moved is where the case starts and which parent has to do the persuading.

The 20 best-interest factors

Section 61.13(3) lists 20 factors, and the court considers all of them together with anything else affecting the welfare of that particular child and family. They fall into a few recognizable groups:

• Support for the other relationship: each parent's demonstrated capacity to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship with the other parent, to honor the schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are needed
• Stability: how long the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, the geographic viability of the plan with attention to travel time for school-age children, and the mental and physical health of each parent
• Day-to-day parenting: the capacity to provide a consistent routine, to be informed about the child's friends, teachers, medical providers and activities, and to keep the other parent informed
• The child's own situation: the child's home, school and community record, and the child's reasonable preference where the court finds the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding and experience to express one
• How the work was actually divided: the parenting tasks each parent customarily performed, including the extent to which they were delegated to third parties
• Safety and candor: evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, abandonment or neglect, the capacity to keep the child in an environment free from substance abuse, and evidence that a parent knowingly gave the court false information about any of it
• Keeping the child out of the case: the capacity to shield the child from the litigation, which includes not sharing court filings with the child and not making disparaging remarks about the other parent

No single factor decides a case, and judges do not treat the list as a scorecard. What moves a court is evidence: records, messages, witnesses, and how each parent has actually behaved since the case started.

Shared parental responsibility, and when a court will not order it

Section 61.13(2)(c)2 directs the court to order that parental responsibility be shared by both parents unless it finds that shared responsibility would be detrimental to the child. In deciding detriment, the court considers evidence of domestic violence as defined in section 741.28, whether a parent has had reasonable cause to believe that they or the children were in imminent danger of domestic or sexual violence by the other parent, and whether a parent has had reasonable cause to believe the children were in imminent danger of abuse, abandonment or neglect. Some convictions create a rebuttable presumption that shared parental responsibility is detrimental, including a conviction for a first-degree misdemeanor or higher involving domestic violence. These are fact-heavy disputes, and the findings a court makes early are difficult to unwind later.

Relocation and the 50-mile rule

Moving with a child has its own statute, section 61.13001. A move counts as a relocation when a parent changes their principal residence by at least 50 miles from where they lived at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, and stays there for at least 60 consecutive days. Temporary absences for vacation, education, or the child's health care do not count.

There are two lawful routes. If the parents and everyone else entitled to time-sharing agree, they can sign a written agreement that reflects consent to the relocation, defines a time-sharing schedule for the non-relocating parent, and deals with transportation. If they do not agree, the relocating parent has to file a petition to relocate, signed under oath, that includes the intended new address, the date of the move, and a detailed statement of the specific reasons for it. Moving first and asking afterward is the mistake that costs parents their case, because the court can order the child returned when a relocation happened without a written agreement or court approval.

One more point worth knowing: section 61.13001(7) says no presumption arises for or against relocation. The court weighs a list of factors, among them the nature and duration of the child's relationship with each parent, the child's age and needs, whether the move is likely to improve the general quality of life for both the relocating parent and the child, and the reasons each parent gives for seeking or opposing it.

Modifying a parenting plan that is already in place

Changing an existing order takes more than a disagreement. Under section 61.13(3), a determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule cannot be modified without a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the child's best interests. Both halves are required, and courts hold parents to them.

The statute also writes in one specific trigger. If the parents were living more than 50 miles apart when the last time-sharing order was entered and one parent then moves within 50 miles of the other, that move may itself be treated as a substantial and material change for the purpose of modifying the schedule, provided the modification is in the child's best interests. Parents who move closer to their children are often surprised to learn it can reopen the schedule.

Enforcement when the other parent will not follow the plan

A parenting plan is a court order. When a parent refuses to honor it without proper cause, section 61.13(4) gives the court a range of responses: ordering make-up time-sharing, ordering the non-complying parent to pay the other parent's costs and attorney fees, requiring that parent to attend an approved parenting course or perform community service, shifting the financial burden of transportation where the parents live more than 60 miles apart, and modifying the parenting plan on the request of the parent who did not violate it where modification is in the child's best interests. Contempt is available as well. What carries these motions is a documented pattern, not a single missed exchange.

Grandparent time-sharing in Florida

Florida's grandparent visitation law is narrow, and it is worth being clear about that before anyone spends money on it. Section 752.011 lets a grandparent petition for court-ordered visitation only where both parents are deceased, missing, or in a persistent vegetative state, or where one parent is in one of those categories and the other has been convicted of a felony or an offense of violence showing behavior that poses a substantial threat of harm to the child's health or welfare.

The process has real hurdles even then. At a preliminary hearing the grandparent has to make a prima facie showing of parental unfitness or significant harm to the child, and a petition that fails there can leave the grandparent paying the other side's attorney fees and costs. If the showing is made, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem and must refer the matter to family mediation. At a final hearing the grandparent must prove parental unfitness or significant harm by clear and convincing evidence, that visitation is in the child's best interests, and that it will not materially harm the parent-child relationship. A narrower presumption in favor of visitation applies where one parent has been held criminally liable for the death of the other parent, or civilly liable for an intentional tort causing that death, and the petitioning grandparent is the parent of the child who died.

When custody goes to trial

Most parenting plans are negotiated, and most families are better served by an agreement they helped build than by an order imposed on them. But when the other side is unreasonable, or when your child's wellbeing or safety is genuinely at stake, you want a lawyer who is ready to make the case in front of a judge. As trial lawyers, that is exactly what we are built for: presenting evidence, examining witnesses, and advocating hard for the outcome your children need.

Talk to a Fort Lauderdale child custody attorney

MK Law handles parenting plans, time-sharing disputes, relocation petitions, modifications, and enforcement across Broward County and South Florida. The earlier a child custody lawyer sees the case, the more room there is to shape it, particularly when a temporary order is about to set a pattern a court may be reluctant to disturb later.

If you are facing a custody dispute in South Florida, call 954.865.6032 and let's talk about how to protect your time with your children.

Talk to us now · 954.865.6032