Castleman v. Bicaldo — What Happens When a Parent Wants to Relocate Out of State

The case Castleman v. Bicaldo is a landmark for relocation disputes under Florida’s parental relocation law. It clarifies that a parent may not simply just up and move a child out of state or even the next county over. Instead, relocation must be evaluated at the time of the petition under the statutory factors and based on the child’s present-day best interests.

Background of the case

In Castleman v. Bicaldo, the mother immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines and obtained conditional permanent resident status because she married a U.S. citizen. After roughly 26 months of marriage, the husband filed for dissolution. At the final judgment, the trial court awarded the wife durational alimony and included a provision that if the wife’s application for U.S. citizenship were denied (potentially subjecting her to deportation), she would be permitted to move to the Philippines with their child.

In other words, the trial court effectively pre-approved a future relocation, contingent on an uncertain immigration outcome. The court reasoned that because the move might be “forced” by deportation, the statute governing parental relocation (Florida Statute § 61.13001) did not apply.

The appeal

In this case, the former husband appealed. On review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found “fundamental error” in the trial court’s approach. First, the appellate court held that the statute does apply even when relocation is involuntary. There is nothing in the statute that limits its application to voluntary moves.

Second, the appellate court rejected the idea of a “prospective” or “future date” relocation order. It held that a court may not lawfully decide today that a relocation will be in a child’s best interest at some unknown future date. Instead, relocation must be assessed based on present circumstances at the time a parent petitions. The court explained that trial courts are not equipped with a “crystal ball” to predict future changes and that doing so undermines the statutory mandate for fact-specific evaluation.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the relocation provision of the dissolution judgment, effectively requiring that any relocation request must proceed under the standard statutory procedure at the time the move becomes imminent.

Key takeaways from the case

Florida’s relocation law applies to involuntary moves – Whether a parent relocates for personal reasons or due to deportation, the same legal framework applies. Parents cannot rely on the argument that “we have no choice” to bypass the statute.
Courts cannot pre-approve speculative future relations – A decision to let a child move out of state must be made when there’s a concrete plan, not based on hypothetical future events.
Relocation orders demand present-day best interests analysis – Evaluations must consider current conditions, not potential future ones.

Talk to a Clearwater, FL, Child Relocation Attorney Today

Need to move with your minor child? Cairns Law, P.A., can help. Call our Clearwater family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1935237.html