In Florida there is no presumption in favor or against a request to relocate when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and will materially affect the current timesharing schedule with the secondary residential parent. In making a determination whether or not to allow the primary residential parent to relocate with the child, the Court must consider the following factors:
Whether the move will be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the residential parent and the child;
The extent to which visitation rights have been allowed and exercised;
Whether the primary residential parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with substitute visitation arrangements;
Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the secondary residential parent;
Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both parties;
Whether the move is in the best interest of the child.
Flint v. Fortson (1999) 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2537 (In this case, the court denied a woman's permission to relocate with her two children to Atlanta to take a job there as a law firm associate.
The woman, who had primary physical custody, had just graduated University of Miami law school in the top 1% of her class (and she had been on law review). The job in Atlanta clearly was an excellent job in her area of specialization.
However, in their separation agreement, the husband was to have physical custody "between 8 and 12 days per month." The parties also agreed that the "[w]ife and children shall live no more than 70 minutes driving time by reliable surface transportation from the Husband's work place at Miami International Airport."
The couple had two girls, ages 8 and 12 at the time of this appeals court decision.
Based on the relevant statute, the appeals court said that the trial court could reasonably have concluded that relocation would so drastically curtail this father's active, ongoing participation in his daughters' lives that, in conjunction with other factors, the move was not in the best interest of the children.
The court affirmed that, in Florida, there is no longer a presumption in favor of the primary residential parent in relocation cases.)
Russenberger (1996) 669 So2d 1044 (applying criterion that, where the relocating parent is acting in good faith, permission to move will generally be granted; nonetheless denying permission in this case).
Card (1995) 659 So2d 1228 (mother had remarried; new spouse received a transfer to Colorado, to a job earning $45,000; in new location, family would live in single-family home rather than apartment; new spouse could not find a comparable job locally; father of child had visited very regularly, at least weekly, often driving from Ocala to Tampa to spend 10 minutes or more; applying the factors above, court allowed the move).
Mize (1993) 621 So2d 417 (adopting the considerations for deciding relocation cases).