TL;DR: When one parent wants to move more than fifty miles from the other, Florida law treats it as relocation — and it triggers a formal legal process. The move cannot happen lawfully without either written agreement or a court order. What feels like a simple job transfer or fresh start becomes a legal issue the moment the distance crosses that threshold.
Most parents who relocate do not start the process believing they need permission. They accept a promotion, follow a partner, or move closer to family — and assume that existing time-sharing will flex to accommodate geography. It does not. Florida law draws a bright line at fifty miles, and once that line is crossed, the parent who wants to move must either secure the other parent's written consent or petition the court. The assumption that goodwill or logistics will substitute for legal process is where most relocation disputes begin.
Relocation becomes a legal issue not when someone buys a house or signs a lease, but when the distance between the child's principal residence at the time of the last order and the proposed new residence is more than fifty miles. The measurement is not about county lines or school districts — it is strictly mileage. A move from Tampa to Sarasota may not trigger the statute; a move from Jacksonville to Gainesville will. The statute applies to any parent or other person entitled to time-sharing, and it governs any change of residence lasting sixty consecutive days or more.
When the Statute Kicks In
Florida Statute 61.13001 defines relocation and sets the procedural framework. The statute applies when a parent seeks to relocate the principal residence of a child for at least sixty consecutive days to a location more than fifty miles from that residence as it existed at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing. The trigger is not the intent to move permanently — it is the combination of distance and duration. The statute expressly excludes a temporary absence from the principal residence for purposes of vacation, education, or the provision of health care for the child. A summer spent with relatives out of state does not require a petition. A new apartment across town does not require notice. But a lease signed seventy miles away for sixty days or more does.
The statute creates a binary choice: obtain the other parent's written agreement, or file a petition and let the court decide. There is no informal middle ground. Verbal assurances do not satisfy the statute. Text messages agreeing to "work it out" do not waive the requirement. The agreement must be in writing, signed by both parties, and it must contain specific elements set out in the statute — including consent to the relocation, a revised time-sharing schedule that accounts for the distance, and a description of any transportation arrangements.
When agreement is not possible, the parent seeking to relocate must file a petition. The petition must be served on the other parent and include a certificate of service, a proposed revised time-sharing schedule, and the specific factual statements the statute requires — including the location of the intended new residence, the date of the intended move, and a detailed statement of the reasons for it. Filing the petition does not grant permission to move. The relocation cannot occur until the court enters an order, or until the time for the other parent to object expires without a timely objection being served. Parents who move before securing authorization risk contempt findings, modification of time-sharing, and attorney's fees.
What the Court Weighs
If the relocation petition is contested, the court evaluates it under a statutory framework that places the initial burden on the relocating parent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the child's best interest. If that burden is met, the burden shifts to the objecting parent to show that it is not. Florida Statute 61.13001(7) lists the factors the court must consider, and the list is not a formality — each factor receives independent scrutiny. There is no presumption for or against relocation.
- The relationship between the child and each parent, and the impact relocation will have on that relationship.
- The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact of relocation 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.
- The child's preference, if the child is of sufficient age, intelligence, understanding, and experience.
- Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent and the child, including financial or emotional benefit.
- The reasons each parent is seeking or opposing the relocation.
- 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 relocating parent has complied with support obligations.
- The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent if the relocation occurs.
- The history of substance abuse or domestic violence, if any.
- Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.
Courts do not weigh all factors equally in every case. A history of missed time-sharing or contempt can tip the analysis against the relocating parent. Evidence that the other parent has been uninvolved or has ignored support obligations can support the petition. The child's school performance, extracurricular commitments, and relationship with extended family may carry more or less weight depending on age and circumstance. Each case turns on its specific facts, but the statutory structure remains constant.
The Proposed Time-Sharing Schedule
One of the most frequently underestimated elements of a relocation petition is the proposed substitute time-sharing schedule. The schedule must be realistic. It must account for the distance, the logistics of transportation, and the child's school calendar. A proposal that shifts the entire burden of travel to the non-relocating parent or that offers minimal make-up time during holidays and summers will not survive scrutiny. The court expects the relocating parent to propose a schedule that preserves the child's relationship with the other parent to the greatest extent possible given the new geography.
Consider a hypothetical: A mother seeks to relocate from Orlando to Atlanta for a new job. The current parenting plan provides alternating weekends and one weeknight dinner. She proposes that the father receive the child for all school breaks, half of the summer, and alternating major holidays, with video calls twice weekly. The father objects, citing the loss of weekly contact and arguing that the child will be uprooted from school and friends. The court will examine whether the job is genuine, whether the mother explored alternatives closer to Orlando, whether the father has been consistently involved, and whether the proposed schedule is workable. The outcome depends on proof — pay stubs, lease agreements, school records, and the credibility of each parent's testimony.
What Happens After the Petition Is Filed
Once the petition is properly served, the non-relocating parent has twenty days to serve a verified answer objecting to the relocation. If no timely objection is served, the relocation is presumed to be in the child's best interest, and the court may enter an order adopting the proposed time-sharing and transportation arrangements without an evidentiary hearing. Default does not mean the court abandons its oversight — it still enters the order — but the failure to object surrenders the non-relocating parent's practical ability to contest the move.
If an objection is timely served, the matter proceeds to a hearing. Temporary relocation may be permitted pending the final hearing if the petitioner demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, but such relief is not automatic. The court may enter a temporary order allowing the move while preserving time-sharing for the other parent, or it may deny temporary relocation and require the petitioner to wait until the final hearing. The decision depends on the equities — whether the job start date is imminent, whether housing is already secured, and whether delaying the move would cause genuine hardship as opposed to inconvenience.
At the final hearing, both sides present evidence. The relocating parent carries the initial burden of proving that the move serves the child's best interest under the statutory factors. The non-relocating parent may present evidence that the relocation is primarily motivated by a desire to interfere with time-sharing, that the relocating parent has a history of noncompliance, or that the proposed schedule is inadequate. Testimony from the child may be permitted depending on age and maturity and at the court's discretion. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem or order a social investigation if credibility or factual disputes require independent assessment.
Relocations That Do Not Require a Petition
Not every move triggers the relocation statute. A parent who moves thirty miles away does not need court approval. A parent who moves sixty miles away but returns every weekend so that the child remains in the same school and maintains the same time-sharing schedule may not be relocating the child's principal residence for purposes of the statute. The question is whether the child's principal residence — not simply the parent's address — is being relocated for sixty consecutive days or more.
Short-term moves, even if they cover significant distance, fall outside the statute if they do not meet the sixty-day threshold. A parent who accepts a temporary work assignment in another city but leaves the child with the other parent during that period is not relocating the child. Conversely, a parent who moves fifteen miles but simultaneously seeks to change the child's school, eliminate the other parent's weeknight dinners, and consolidate time-sharing into alternating weekends may face a modification petition that resembles a relocation dispute in everything but name. Geography is not the only variable — the impact on the existing time-sharing arrangement drives the analysis.
Parents who consult counsel before signing a lease or accepting a job offer avoid the most common traps. The statute's requirements are technical, and non-compliance has consequences that goodwill cannot repair. When a parent has already moved without following the process, the options narrow. The non-relocating parent can move for contempt, seek an order compelling return of the child, or petition for modification of the parenting plan based on the violation. Courts treat unauthorized relocation as evidence of a willingness to disregard orders, and that evidence shapes future time-sharing determinations. For representation in contested divorce and family law matters, strategic positioning from the outset makes the difference between a move that succeeds and one that collapses under its own procedural weight.
Closing Remarks
If a job offer arrives with a start date before a petition can be heard, if the other parent refuses to sign a written agreement despite verbal assurances, or if relocation has already occurred and an objection has been filed, the procedural window is closing while the stakes climb. You already know what you need to do. You just need someone to say it out loud and hand you the plan. Brandon Legal Group handles contested relocation and custody modification cases across Florida with the clarity and force these disputes require. Contact us today — the conversation you have been avoiding starts with one call.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a parent relocate if the other parent verbally agrees?
Verbal agreement does not satisfy Florida's relocation statute. The agreement must be in writing, signed by both parents, and must include the specific elements required by Florida Statute 61.13001 — consent to the relocation, a revised time-sharing schedule, and any transportation arrangements. Informal text messages and email exchanges, even if they express consent, are not a substitute for the signed written agreement the statute requires, and a court must ratify it. Without that agreement or a court order, the relocation is not authorized, and the moving parent risks contempt and modification of time-sharing.
What happens if a parent moves without filing a petition?
Moving without authorization exposes the relocating parent to contempt proceedings, an order compelling return of the child to the prior residence, and modification of the parenting plan. Courts view unauthorized relocation as evidence of willingness to disregard court orders, and that evidence weighs heavily in future time-sharing determinations. The non-relocating parent can move for enforcement of the existing time-sharing order and seek return of the child. Attorney's fees and costs may be awarded against the relocating parent.
Does the fifty-mile rule apply to moves within the same county?
The statute measures distance, not county or municipal boundaries. A move within the same county that is more than fifty miles from the child's principal residence at the time of the last order triggers the relocation statute. Conversely, a move across county lines that remains within fifty miles does not require a petition. The measurement is the distance between the two residences, and it applies regardless of political geography.
Can a relocation petition be filed after the move has already occurred?
The statute contemplates that a petition is filed and resolved before the move occurs, unless the parties have a written agreement ratified by the court. Filing after the fact does not erase the procedural violation, and the court may order the child returned while the petition is pending. If a parent has already relocated without authorization, the non-relocating parent's remedy is enforcement and modification. Courts do not simply validate unauthorized moves through after-the-fact petitions.
What if the child wants to move with the relocating parent?
The child's preference is one statutory factor among many, and its weight depends on the child's age, maturity, and reasons for the preference. A teenager's well-considered preference may carry significant weight. A young child's stated preference, especially if it appears influenced by one parent, carries less. The court considers the preference within the full statutory framework — it does not automatically grant relocation because the child expresses a desire to move.
References
- Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, Parental Relocation with a Child.
- Fla. Stat. § 61.13, Support of Children; Parenting and Time-Sharing; Powers of Court.