Relocation in Family Law: Navigating the Complexities

In today's increasingly nomadic society, the challenges of parental relocation in family law have grown more complex. Parents often face the dilemma of moving for employment or personal reasons while maintaining timesharing arrangements with their children. This article explores the evolution of relocation law and highlights key cases and legislation, particularly in Florida, to provide a comprehensive understanding for family law practitioners.

Historical Context and Developments

30 years ago, relocation disputes were rare because custody arrangements often clearly defined the custodial parent, typically the mother, who could move without restriction. However, as shared parenting became more common, disputes increased, leading to the development of legal frameworks to address these issues.

The American Law Institute (ALI) set a permissive tone for relocations, suggesting that custodial parents could move without proving the move's benefits to the child, provided the move was in good faith. This stance influenced many state laws, including Florida's approach.

Florida's Legal Landscape for Relocation

Florida's journey with relocation law began with the case of Mize v. Mize in 1993, which favored relocation if it was in good faith. This was followed by statutory changes, particularly the introduction of F.S. §61.13001 in 2006, which established detailed procedures for parental relocation. This statute requires parents to consider several factors, including the child's best interests, the impact of the move, and the feasibility of maintaining relationships with the nonrelocating parent.

In 2009, Florida refined these procedures, emphasizing the importance of proper notification and the opportunity for objections. Recent cases have continued to shape how these laws are applied:

• Krift v. Obenour (2014): Highlighted the inapplicability of the relocation statute when neither parent's principal residence changed.
• Rolison v. Rolison (2014): Emphasized that the relocation statute applies only when a parent's principal place of residence changes at the time of the last order or filing of a pending action.

Recent Developments and Case Law

Since 2015, Florida courts have continued to interpret relocation statutes with an emphasis on the child's best interests. Noteworthy cases include:

• Arthur v. Arthur (2010): Reinforced the importance of considering the child's best interests at the time of the relocation hearing.
• Albanese v. Albanese (2014): Demonstrated the need for evidence that relocation benefits the child's overall quality of life, not just the parent's.

International Relocation Challenges

International relocation presents additional complexities, including potential child abduction risks and enforceability of custody orders across borders. Practitioners must navigate international laws, such as the Hague Convention, and consider preventative measures like securing passports and drafting travel agreements.

In the last 36 months, Florida courts have seen several significant cases that continue to shape the application of relocation laws in family law. Here are notable cases and developments:

1. Best Interests of the Child Standard: Florida courts remain steadfast in emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount. Recent rulings have underscored the necessity of a thorough examination of how relocation affects the child's emotional, educational, and social well-being.
2. Burden of Proof: Recent cases have reiterated that the parent seeking to relocate must prove that the move is in good faith and in the best interests of the child. The courts have clarified the standards for what constitutes sufficient evidence to support relocation, focusing on factors like improved quality of life and opportunities for the child.
3. Impact of Virtual Communication: With advancements in technology, courts have increasingly considered the role of virtual communication (e.g., video calls) in maintaining the relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent. This factor plays into decisions where distance is a significant concern.
4. Procedural Requirements: Recent decisions have highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements outlined in F.S. §61.13001, such as proper notice and detailed relocation plans. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in denial of relocation petitions.