Florida's rule on child custody and parenting time turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Florida uses Shared or sole parental responsibility (legal) and a time-sharing schedule (physical parenting time).. Section 61.13 directs courts to determine parental responsibility based on the best interests of the child, listing extensive factors such as capacity to provide, moral fitness, home stability, and evidence of domestic violence. Florida favors shared parental responsibility unless it would be detrimental to the child; equal time-sharing is a common starting presumption under recent amendments, subject to best interests. The controlling authority is Fla. Stat. § 61.13. Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate the child more than 50 miles for at least 60 days generally must obtain written agreement or court permission under §§ 61.13001. Modification: A substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances is generally required to modify parental responsibility or time-sharing.
Key takeaways
- Best-interests standard: Section 61.
- Labels used in Florida: Shared or sole parental responsibility (legal) and a time-sharing schedule (physical parenting time)..
- Parenting-time posture: Florida favors shared parental responsibility unless it would be detrimental to the child; equal time-sharing is a common starting presumption under recent amendments, subject to best interests.
- Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate the child more than 50 miles for at least 60 days generally must obtain written agreement or court permission under §§ 61.
- Modification: A substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances is generally required to modify parental responsibility or time-sharing.
- Primary authority: Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
Worked example under Florida law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Florida. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
Two parents in Florida disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.
- Use the labels Florida actually uses: Shared or sole parental responsibility (legal) and a time-sharing schedule (physical parenting time)..
- Apply the best-interests factors: Section 61.13 directs courts to determine parental responsibility based on the best interests of the child, listing extensive factors such as capacity to provide, moral fitness, home stability, and evidence of domestic violence.
- Check any parenting presumption: Florida favors shared parental responsibility unless it would be detrimental to the child; equal time-sharing is a common starting presumption under recent amendments, subject to best interests.
- If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to relocate the child more than 50 miles for at least 60 days generally must obtain written agreement or court permission under §§ 61.13001. Later changes follow: A substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances is generally required to modify parental responsibility or time-sharing.
Parenting plans are mandatory in cases with minor children. Many circuits require mediation. Temporary time-sharing orders stabilize the case. Final judgments adopt a detailed parenting plan under § 61.13.
Best-interests factors in Florida
Section 61.13 directs courts to determine parental responsibility based on the best interests of the child, listing extensive factors such as capacity to provide, moral fitness, home stability, and evidence of domestic violence.
Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time
Shared or sole parental responsibility (legal) and a time-sharing schedule (physical parenting time).
Florida favors shared parental responsibility unless it would be detrimental to the child; equal time-sharing is a common starting presumption under recent amendments, subject to best interests.
Relocation with a child
A parent seeking to relocate the child more than 50 miles for at least 60 days generally must obtain written agreement or court permission under §§ 61.13001.
Modifying a Florida custody order
A substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances is generally required to modify parental responsibility or time-sharing.
How custody cases typically move in Florida
Parenting plans are mandatory in cases with minor children. Many circuits require mediation. Temporary time-sharing orders stabilize the case. Final judgments adopt a detailed parenting plan under § 61.13.
Related Florida guides
Case law: custody and parenting time in Florida
Wade v. Hirschman
Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (2005)
…he test courts should use in proceedings to modify rotating custody agreements. The conflict to be resolved is whether the trial court should base modification of rotating custody agreements on the considerations set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2003), as if it were making an initial custody determination as *931 the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in Wade, or…
Practitioners open Wade v. Hirschman when Florida child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The conflict to be resolved is whether the trial court should base modification of rotating custody agreements on the considerations set forth in section 61." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Gibbs v. Gibbs
Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (1996)
…ie Lynn Gibbs appeals an order shifting primary residential custody of her eleven-year-old son to his father, Raymond Lemoyne Gibbs. We reverse because the father failed to meet the extraordinary burden necessary to support a postdissolution change of custody. Standing alone, the fact that a male infant grows into a young man and develops an interest in sports is not the type o…
On child custody, Gibbs v. Gibbs speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Lynn Gibbs appeals an order shifting primary residential custody of her eleven-year-old son to his father, Raymond Lemoyne Gibbs. We reverse because the father failed to meet the extraordinary burden necessary to support a postdissolution change of custody." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Decker v. Lyle
Decker v. Lyle, 848 So. 2d 501 (2003)
…mother") appeals the trial court's order awarding temporary custody of the parties' minor child to James D. Lyle ("the father"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii). Because the record does not reflect that the trial court considered and addressed the best interests of the minor child in making the temporary custody award, we…
Decker v. Lyle is worth reading on Florida child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "James D. Lyle ('the father'). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Williams v. Williams
Williams v. Williams, 845 So. 2d 246 (2003)
…ld and requiring law enforcement to assist him in obtaining custody of the child. The order provided no visitation for the former wife. Later in July 2002, the former wife returned to Florida with the child, apparently due in large part to the former husband's successful legal actions against her in Germany. The child was placed in the custody of the former husband based upon t…
Florida opinions such as Williams v. Williams are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "The order provided no visitation for the former wife. Later in July 2002, the former wife returned to Florida with the child, apparently due in large part to the former husband's successful legal actions against her in Germany." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Williams v. Williams
Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493 (1996)
…husband and custodial parent, appeals an order transferring custody of his nine-year-old son to Deloris Williams, the former wife and mother of the child. The parties' 1977 marriage was dissolved in 1987. Two children were born of the marriage, a daughter, Tiffany, in 1984 and a son, Terrell, in 1986. The settlement agreement, incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution,…
Williams v. Williams is worth reading on Florida child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Deloris Williams, the former wife and mother of the child. The parties' 1977 marriage was dissolved in 1987. Two children were born of the marriage, a daughter, Tiffany, in 1984 and a son, Terrell, in 1986." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Elizabeth R. BAINBRIDGE, Appellant, v. James Lawrence PRATT, Jr., Appellee
…g parenting plan was traditionally referred to as “rotating custody.” See Ch. 2008-61, § 6, at 792, Laws of Fla. Rotating custody covered similar plans that rotated the primary residential parent on an annual, semi-annual, or weekly basis. See, e.g., Chapman v. Prevatt, 845 So.2d 976, 979-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Ruffridge v. Ruffridge, 687 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Lang…
On child custody, Elizabeth R. BAINBRIDGE, Appellant, v. James Lawrence PRATT, Jr., Appellee speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "See Ch. 2008-61, § 6, at 792, Laws of Fla. Rotating custody covered similar plans that rotated the primary residential parent on an annual, semi-annual, or weekly basis. See, e.g., Chapman v. Prevatt, 845 So.2d 976, 979-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Ruffridge v. Ruffridge, 687 So." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Snedaker v. Snedaker
Snedaker v. Snedaker, 327 So. 2d 72 (1976)
…y the learned trial judge awarding to the appellee (mother) custody of the three-year-old minor child of the parties. The facts are such that no useful purpose will be accomplished by a lengthy recitation thereof. Suffice to say that our reading of the record reveals no evidence in support of appellee's contention that it is for the "best interest" of the minor child for custod…
Practitioners open Snedaker v. Snedaker when Florida child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The facts are such that no useful purpose will be accomplished by a lengthy recitation thereof." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Richardson v. Richardson
Richardson v. Richardson, 734 So. 2d 1063 (1999)
…LEN, J. The appellant challenges an order modifying a child custody provision in a preceding marital dissolution decree. Primary residential custody of the appellant's minor child was transferred from the appellant to the appellee grandparents, based on the trial court's application of a best interest standard pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. We conclude that ins…
Florida opinions such as Richardson v. Richardson are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "LEN, J. The appellant challenges an order modifying a child custody provision in a preceding marital dissolution decree." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Frequently asked questions
What does Florida call “custody”?
Shared or sole parental responsibility (legal) and a time-sharing schedule (physical parenting time).
Can I move out of state with my child?
A parent seeking to relocate the child more than 50 miles for at least 60 days generally must obtain written agreement or court permission under §§ 61.13001.
How do I change an existing custody order in Florida?
A substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances is generally required to modify parental responsibility or time-sharing.
This guide covers Florida custody law as of 2026. Verify the live statute and any local parenting-time guidelines before relying on this summary.