Relocating With Your Child After Divorce: What Florida Law Says

A move that would be unremarkable for a single adult — a job offer in another city, a remarriage, the chance to live closer to family — becomes a significant legal proceeding when one parent shares a child with the other. Florida law treats parental relocation seriously and has its own statute governing exactly when and how a parent can move with the child once a parenting plan or court order is in place.

Get this wrong and the consequences are severe: the court can order the immediate return of the child, modify the parenting plan in favor of the non-relocating parent, find the relocating parent in contempt, and award attorney’s fees. Get it right and a meritorious relocation gets approved through a structured process that respects both parents’ interests and the child’s well-being.

What Counts as a Relocation Under Florida Law?

Under § 61.13001(1)(e), “relocation” means a change in the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time of filing the pending action to establish or modify time-sharing. The change of location must be at least 50 miles from that residence, and for at least 60 consecutive days, not counting temporary absences for vacation, education, or health-related care.

A weekend trip is not a relocation. A 30-mile move is not a relocation. A 200-mile move for 90 days is. A summer at a beach house is generally not, depending on what the family means by “principal residence.”

When the Statute Applies

Section 61.13001 applies once there is an existing court order or pending action that establishes or modifies time-sharing or a parenting plan. Before any such order or filing, a parent’s choice of residence is governed by general law. Once the parenting plan exists, the statute controls every subsequent move that meets the 50-mile/60-day threshold.

This includes the parent who has the majority of time-sharing, the parent with less time-sharing, and any other person who has a defined parenting role under the order. It is not limited to the “primary” or “majority” parent.

The Two Paths: Agreement or Court Permission

There are exactly two lawful paths to relocate under § 61.13001:

Path 1: Written Agreement Plus Court Ratification

Under § 61.13001(2), the parents may relocate by written agreement that:

• Reflects consent to the relocation,
• Defines an access or time-sharing schedule for the non-relocating parent,
• Describes any necessary transportation arrangements related to access or time-sharing.

The agreement must be ratified by the court. The court reviews to ensure the agreement serves the child’s best interests, and absent good reason to disturb it, will incorporate the agreement into an order. Most agreements are ratified routinely.

Path 2: Petition for Permission

Under § 61.13001(3), a parent who wants to relocate without the other parent’s consent must file a petition with specific contents. The petition must:

• Be signed under oath by the parent seeking relocation.
• Include the address and telephone number of the proposed new residence.
• Specify the mailing address for the new residence if different.
• Identify the date the relocation will occur.
• Include a detailed statement of the reasons for the proposed relocation, with attached job offers if employment is the reason.
• Include a proposal for revised time-sharing and transportation arrangements.
• Include a specific notice to the other parent of the right to object, on a form prescribed by statute.

The other parent then has 20 days to file an answer objecting to the relocation. If no answer is filed within 20 days, § 61.13001(3)(d) permits the court to allow the relocation without an evidentiary hearing on the merits — but only if the petition is in proper form. This is one of the most consequential default rules in Florida family law: a non-relocating parent who fails to object timely can lose the case without ever appearing.

If an objection is filed, the case proceeds to a contested hearing.

The Best-Interest Analysis at the Hearing

When relocation is contested, § 61.13001(7) lays out the factors the court must consider. These overlap with — but are distinct from — the general best-interest factors of § 61.13(3). The relocation factors include:

• The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with each parent.
• 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.
• The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through substitute arrangements that take into consideration logistics, financial circumstances, and the parties’ ability to fund travel.
• The child’s preference, considering age and maturity.
• Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent seeking relocation and the child — including financial benefits, emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.
• The reasons each parent is seeking or opposing the relocation, including whether the proposed move is in good faith.
• The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent and whether the relocation is necessary to improve them.
• That the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled their obligations to the child.
• The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent if the relocation occurs.
• A history of substance abuse or domestic violence as defined in § 741.28 by either parent, including whether such conduct affected the family at issue.
• Any other factor the court considers material.

Importantly, § 61.13001(7)(b) explicitly directs that no presumption arises in favor of or against the relocation. The relocating parent does not bear a special burden, but neither does the parent objecting. The court weighs the factors on the evidence presented.

The Burden of Proof

Under § 61.13001(8), the burden is split:

• The parent seeking relocation has the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation should be allowed.
• If the parent meets that initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-relocating parent to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interest.

The shifting framework reflects the statute’s neutrality — neither side has the field advantage going in. The case is genuinely about evidence.

What Wins Relocation Cases

The relocating parent who carries the burden under § 61.13001 generally builds the case around several strong pillars:

A Documented, Concrete Reason

Vague aspirations rarely succeed. Specific, documented reasons — a written job offer with salary and benefits, an educational program acceptance, a documented medical need that requires specific care unavailable locally, a remarriage to a partner whose employment is genuinely tied to the new location — carry weight. The statute specifically requires job offers to be attached to the petition.

A Quality-of-Life Improvement for the Child

The court does not focus on the parent’s quality of life in isolation. The question is whether the move enhances the child’s quality of life. Stronger schools, more extended family contact, better medical resources for a special-needs child, a better neighborhood, a more stable household — each is a factor that can support the move when documented.

A Realistic, Workable Substitute Time-Sharing Plan

The single most common reason relocation petitions fail: the relocating parent presents an unrealistic substitute schedule. A plan that gives the non-relocating parent extended summer time, alternating school breaks, frequent weekend visits during the school year (where geography permits), liberal video and phone contact, and clear protocols for transportation costs is dramatically more credible than a vague offer of “as much time as possible.”

The plan should address:

• Specific weekends, holidays, and breaks the non-relocating parent will receive.
• Who pays for transportation, and how it is funded (including the relocating parent often agreeing to bear most of the cost).
• How the child travels — unaccompanied minor protocols for younger children, scheduled flights, exchange logistics.
• Daily contact through video and phone, with defined windows.

A relocating parent who proposes more total time for the non-relocating parent than they currently exercise — for example, by consolidating short visits into longer blocks — has a particularly strong proposal.

Good Faith

The court will look at whether the move is genuinely motivated by legitimate reasons or by a desire to interfere with the other parent’s relationship with the child. A parent whose move “happens to” eliminate the other parent’s involvement, who has a history of obstructing time-sharing, or whose stated reason does not hold up under examination loses the good-faith analysis.

Evidence the Non-Relocating Parent Can Maintain a Relationship

The court evaluates whether the non-relocating parent can realistically remain involved despite the distance. Cases where the non-relocating parent has the financial means to travel, a flexible work schedule, family in the new area, or the willingness to relocate themselves all support the relocating parent’s case. Cases where the non-relocating parent’s involvement would functionally end if the move is permitted face higher scrutiny.

What Defeats Relocation Cases

Already Moving Without Permission

The single most damaging move a relocating parent can make is to move first and seek permission afterward. Section 61.13001(6) authorizes the court to order the immediate return of the child, modify the parenting plan in favor of the non-relocating parent, find the relocating parent in contempt, and award attorney’s fees. The relocating parent who has acted without authorization walks into the contested hearing already losing.

Vague or Inadequate Substitute Time-Sharing

A relocating parent who cannot articulate a concrete, fundable substitute schedule signals that the move was not genuinely planned around the non-relocating parent’s continued involvement. Courts read this as bad faith.

Pretextual Reasons

A “job opportunity” that turns out to be a position the relocating parent accepted because they wanted to move, rather than the other way around, falls apart at the contested hearing. So does a relocation framed as being for the child’s benefit but visibly motivated by the relocating parent’s relationship with a new partner.

A History of Obstruction

A relocating parent who has chronically interfered with the other parent’s time-sharing — late exchanges, withheld weekends, unilateral schedule changes — has set themselves up to lose the good-faith analysis. The non-relocating parent’s evidence of past obstruction becomes evidence that the move will continue the pattern.

Failing the Procedural Requirements

A petition that omits any of the statutory requirements — sworn signature, specific notice language, address of new residence, attached job offer, defined substitute schedule — can be dismissed without reaching the merits.

Common Scenarios

Job Relocation

The most common reason for relocation petitions. Strong cases include written job offers with documented salary increases, positions that are genuinely not available locally, and employer-required relocations. Weaker cases include positions the relocating parent applied for after deciding to move, lateral moves with marginal financial benefit, or jobs the relocating parent could perform remotely.

Remarriage

A relocating parent’s new spouse’s employment in another location is a recognized basis. Stronger cases involve genuine career constraints (military service, executive positions tied to specific locations, family business obligations). Weaker cases involve preference rather than constraint.

Family Support

A relocation to be near supportive family — particularly when one parent is dealing with a special-needs child or other significant caregiving demand — can be credible. The court looks for documented prior involvement of the family, the realistic support they will provide, and how it benefits the child.

Educational or Medical Needs

A move motivated by a specific educational program (gifted, special needs, performing arts) or specific medical care unavailable locally is a recognized basis. Documentation matters — acceptance letters, medical referrals, treatment provider statements.

International Relocation

International moves involve all the § 61.13001 requirements plus considerations under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The framework is significantly different. International cases — particularly relevant in Miami’s international community — require attorneys with specific Hague experience.

What the Non-Relocating Parent Should Do

Object Timely

The 20-day window to file an answer under § 61.13001(3) is a hard deadline. A non-relocating parent who fails to object timely can lose the case without a hearing under the default provisions of § 61.13001(3)(d). Filing the objection is the first priority.

Build the Counter-Case Through the Statute’s Factors

The objection should track the § 61.13001(7) factors directly — addressing each one with evidence supporting denial of the relocation. Generic opposition rarely succeeds; opposition built around the specific statutory factors does.

Demonstrate the Realistic Cost to the Relationship

Documentation of the non-relocating parent’s prior involvement — school events attended, medical appointments handled, the day-to-day relationship — establishes what stands to be lost. The relocating parent’s burden includes proving the substitute schedule will preserve a meaningful relationship; the non-relocating parent’s evidence about the existing relationship makes that burden harder to carry.

Consider Whether to Counter-Propose

In some cases, the non-relocating parent’s strongest position is not absolute opposition but a counter-proposal — a different substitute schedule, a different timing for the move, a different framing of cost-sharing. Courts respond well to non-relocating parents who appear reasonable about the realities of the situation.

Don’t Engage in Self-Help Either

Just as the relocating parent cannot move unilaterally, the non-relocating parent cannot withhold the child, refuse the existing schedule, or interfere with normal contact in retaliation. Self-help destroys credibility and produces its own enforcement consequences.

The Procedural Path

1. Pre-Filing: Attempt Agreement

In many cases, the most cost-effective path is direct negotiation between counsel for an agreed relocation with revised parenting plan. If both parents see the move’s realities and the substitute schedule honestly, agreement can avoid contested litigation.

2. File the Petition (or Move to Object)

If agreement fails, the relocating parent files the petition under § 61.13001(3) — with all statutory requirements — and serves the other parent. The other parent has 20 days to object.

3. Discovery

The case enters discovery: financial records (especially when transportation costs are at issue), employment documentation, school records, medical records, evidence of each parent’s involvement.

4. Mediation

Most Florida circuits require a mediation attempt. Many relocation cases settle in mediation when the parties confront the realities of contested litigation.

5. Temporary Hearing (Sometimes)

In some cases, the court will hold a temporary hearing on whether the relocation can occur pending the final hearing. The standards for temporary relocation under § 61.13001(6) are demanding — likely success at the final hearing must be shown by a preponderance.

6. Final Hearing

A contested final hearing on relocation typically takes one to several days, depending on complexity. Expert witnesses (vocational experts to address job opportunities, mental health professionals to address impact on the child, financial experts to address transportation feasibility) are common.

7. Order

The court issues an order granting or denying the relocation, typically with revised parenting plan provisions if granted. Either party can appeal under standard appellate procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

How far can I move with my child in Florida without permission?

Up to 50 miles from your residence at the time of the most recent parenting plan order, or for less than 60 consecutive days, without invoking § 61.13001. Beyond either threshold, the relocation statute applies and requires either written agreement or court permission.

What is the 50-mile rule in Florida custody?

The “50-mile rule” refers to § 61.13001’s threshold definition of relocation. A move of 50 miles or more from the residence at the time of the parenting plan order, for 60 or more consecutive days, requires either the other parent’s written consent or court permission.

How to win a relocation case in Florida?

Cases that succeed generally combine: (1) a documented, concrete reason for the move (job offer, family support need, educational opportunity), (2) a realistic and well-funded substitute time-sharing schedule for the non-relocating parent, (3) evidence of quality-of-life improvement for the child, (4) good faith demonstrated through prior cooperation with the existing parenting plan, and (5) careful procedural compliance with § 61.13001’s pleading requirements.

What happens if I move without permission?

The court can order the immediate return of the child, modify the parenting plan in favor of the non-relocating parent, find you in contempt, and award attorney’s fees. Unauthorized relocation is treated seriously and is rarely defensible, even when the underlying move has merit.

Can I move within Florida without permission?

If the move is more than 50 miles and for 60 or more consecutive days, the statute applies regardless of whether the move stays inside Florida. Miami to Tallahassee is governed by the same rule as Miami to Atlanta.

What if my ex agrees to the move informally?

Informal consent does not satisfy § 61.13001. The agreement must be in writing, must address the substitute schedule, and must be ratified by the court. An “informal” agreement cannot be enforced and exposes the relocating parent to liability if the other parent later changes their mind.

How long does a relocation case take?

Uncontested relocations resolve in roughly 30 to 60 days from filing of the agreement. Contested relocations typically run 6 to 12 months from filing of the petition through final hearing, with expedited handling possible in cases involving school enrollment or job start-date pressures.

What if I already moved before the parenting plan was entered?

The statute applies based on the residence at the time of the last order or pending action. A move that predates the original parenting plan is generally outside § 61.13001’s scope — though it can still affect the original plan’s terms and the best-interest analysis under § 61.13(3).

Talk to Nest Law About Your Florida Relocation Case

Relocation cases run on procedural specificity, documented evidence, and careful framing of the statutory factors. The cases that succeed — for either side — are built around the statute, not against it.

At Nest Law, our Miami family law attorneys handle relocation petitions and objections across Miami-Dade and Broward County, including domestic and international relocation, urgent cases tied to job start dates or school enrollment, and modifications to existing parenting plans triggered by a parent’s move.

Schedule a confidential case evaluation to discuss your case.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Florida family law is highly fact-specific and the application of § 61.13001 and the related framework varies by circuit, judge, and the specific facts of each case. International relocation cases involve a different framework under the Hague Convention. For guidance on your situation, consult a qualified Florida family law attorney.