Florida Court Addresses Inconsistent Rulings In Child Relocation Disputes

Child relocation disputes are some of the most intricate Florida family law matters. In a child relocation case, the court must weigh the child’s needs, the relocating parent’s interests, and the non-relocating parent’s right to have a relationship with their child. In this article, the Tampa, FL, family law attorneys at Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, will discuss a real Florida family law case involving child relocation. 

Background of the case 

In this case, the underlying dispute involved parents who were not married and had a minor child together. After some time following the separation of the parents, the father sought permission from the court to move to Hawaii with the child. The father believed that such a move would benefit the child and improve their quality of life.

The mother, however, opposed the move. She argued that if the child were to move thousands of miles away from her, her relationship with the child would be greatly disrupted. Since the parents were unable to come to an agreement regarding the matter, it was presented for the child court to decide under Florida’s relocation laws. During the proceedings, however, the father relocated to Hawaii with the child while the relocation petition was still pending. Ultimately, the trial court determined that a move to Hawaii was not in the child’s best interests, so it denied his request. The court did, however, allow for a new parenting plan that would allow the child to spend a significant amount of time in Hawaii with their father. 

The appeal 

The mother appealed the decision by the trial court to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. The mother argued that the court’s decision was legally inconsistent. She further argued that it was impossible for the court to deny the father’s decision to relocate while at the same time approving a parenting plan that would allow the child to spend a great deal of time in a distant location.

The appellate court agreed with the mother’s arguments. The appellate court argued that if it had found that it was not in the best interests of the child to relocate to Hawaii, it could not at the same time allow a parenting plan that would require the child to spend a lot of time in Hawaii.

In this case, the Third District found that there was an “irreconcilable inconsistency” within the trial court’s decision. Two parts of the ruling could not exist at the same time. Further, the decision was found to be not in the best interests of the child. The appellate court thus reversed the decision. 

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Child Relocation Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, represents the interests of parents who are looking to relocate with their child. Call our Tampa 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/115675453.html