If you want to relocate with your child, you need the other parent’s permission. Failing that, you need to obtain the court’s permission to move forward with the relocation. This is exemplified in the case of Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 2010). In this article, we’ll discuss the importance of this case for Florida law.
Background of the case
In the Arthur case, the trial court had granted the mother primary residential custody over her child. The husband shared parental responsibility, but the child mostly lived with their mother. The mother subsequently petitioned the court to relocate permanently with the child to the State of Michigan. At the final hearing, the child was 16 months old.
The court approved the mother’s relocation, but deferred its commencement until the child turned three years of age—a delay of roughly 20 months, to allow the child to bond with their father.
The father appealed the decision, arguing that the court lacked the authority to make a prospective determination regarding the best interests of the child’s future welfare. In other words, the father wanted to block the relocation on the basis that the court had no way of knowing what the child’s best interests would be in 20 months.
The question then became: Can a trial court authorize a relocation of a child in the future, based on a forecast of the child’s best interests, or must the determination be based entirely on present circumstances at the final hearing?
Understanding the outcome of the case
This case made it all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that relocation decisions must be made at the time of the final hearing, grounded in evidence and circumstances that exist then. Prospective-based decisions, or those projecting best interests into the future, are not permissible.
- Statutory interpretation and precedent – The court aligned itself with previous decisions by the First District, which all emphasized that custody determinations, especially in relocation matters, must be final and grounded in current circumstances.
- Limitations of forecasting – The ruling essentially prevented courts from forecasting the best interests of the child to decide a relocation matter. Courts cannot reliably predict the future, and circumstances can evolve significantly.
- Burden and presumptions – Allowing future relocation based on a current hearing unfairly shifts the burden of proof. Generally, the parent seeking relocation must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the move is in the child’s best interests.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s approval of the deferred relocation plan. The ruling effectively required the trial court to deny the relocation request. Nonetheless, the mother could later petition the court for a modification once the child reached the age of three.
Talk to a Tampa, FL, Child Custody Attorney Today
The Tampa, FL, divorce lawyers at Westchase Law, P.A., represent the interests of parents during custody determinations. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin addressing your concerns right away.
Source:
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-supreme-court/1497415.html