Relocating with a Child in Florida After a Divorce

If you have a parenting plan in place, you cannot just up and relocate on a whim. You need either the other parent’s consent or the court’s permission to do so. Relocation hearings can be hotly contested because one parent stands to lose access to the children. Ultimately, the courts must weigh whether the move is in the child’s best interests. In this article, the Clearwater, FL, divorce lawyers at Cairns Law, P.A., will discuss the case of Ward v. Waters in which the court was asked to grant a relocation with the children.

Background of the case 

Ward v. Waters is an appeal from a final judgment in a paternity/custody case. In this case, the trial court denied the father’s petition to relocate with a child and also simultaneously adopted a long-distance parenting plan (extending timesharing in the father’s proposed new location). Since the two rulings were in direct tension, the appellate court found an “irreconcilable inconsistency”. This case is often cited as authority that a court cannot deny relocation and effectively permit it via timesharing unless the findings can support both aspects.

In this case, the parties had one minor child. The father filed a petition to relocate the child to Hawaii and the mother objected. While the relocation petition remained pending, the father unilaterally moved the child to Hawaii. After the hearing, the trial court denied the relocation (finding that it was not in the best interests of the child) and still adopted a long-distance parenting plan that granted the father extended timesharing in Hawaii.

The mother appealed both the denial of relocation and the adoption of the long-distance timesharing plan.

The appeal

The question before the court of appeals was: Can a court properly deny a relocation petition yet simultaneously grant long-distance timesharing that effectively allows the child to spend significant time in the relocating parent’s new location?

Was there an “irreconcilable inconsistency” when the two rulings conflict, such that the relocation denial undermines or contradicts the parenting plan?

In this case, the 3rd District Court of Appeal held that the concurrent denial of the father’s relocation petition and adoption of a long-distance parenting plan was an irreconcilable inconsistency that the trial court could not sustain.

The court, thus, reversed the part of the judgment adopting the long-distance timesharing plan and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Florida’s relocation statute and the facts as found. On remand, the trial court must consider whether any long-distance timesharing plan is permissible in light of the relocation denial and make consistent findings on the child’s best interests.

Talk to a Clearwater, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today

The Clearwater divorce lawyers at Cairns Law, P.A., represent the interests of Clearwater residents during their divorce. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.