Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed an order denying Amber Marie Harman’s petition to relocate the parties’ children from Miami to San Diego. The court held that the trial court improperly relied on inherent relocation effects and speculative future circumstances, and erroneously applied a presumption against relocation after finding the parties’ evidence was in equipoise. The order was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on changes inherent in every relocation, such as adapting to new schools, friends, routines, and surroundings, when evaluating the statutory relocation factors.
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on speculative future changes in the mother's marital relationship and finances when determining the children's best interests.
- Whether the trial court erroneously applied a presumption against relocation by finding that the father satisfied his shifted burden merely by showing that he was equally capable of meeting the children's needs.
Holdings
- A trial court may not rely on acclimating to a new daily routine and schedule, becoming accustomed to a new home and surroundings, or no longer living with the previously resident parent as determinative considerations in a contested relocation proceeding because those consequences are inherent in every relocation.
- A trial court may not substitute speculation about potential future events, including the future status of a parent's marital relationship or resulting finances, for evidence in conducting the best-interests analysis at the final hearing.
- When the relocating parent satisfies the initial preponderance burden and the evidence is in equipoise as to whether relocation is not in the child's best interests, the nonrelocating parent has not met the shifted preponderance burden. A court may not break the evidentiary tie by applying a presumption against relocation.
Key quotations
“acclimating to a new daily routine and schedule, becoming accustomed to a new home and surroundings, and adjusting to no longer being with the parent with whom the child previously lived, are inherent in every relocation” (at 6)
“This finding, that 9 the parties’ evidence was in equipoise, means that the father failed to meet the burden, now shifted to him, to show that relocation was not in the best interest of the children.” (at 9)
Factual background
The parties married in 2017 and have two children. Their 2021 final judgment of dissolution incorporated a parenting plan providing for equal timesharing, and the mother later petitioned to relocate with the children from Miami to San Diego, where her then-fiancé lived. After a four-day hearing, the trial court found that the mother proved relocation was in the children's best interests, but determined that the father showed he was equally capable of meeting the children's needs and therefore denied relocation.
Procedural history
The parties' 2021 final judgment of dissolution incorporated a marital settlement agreement and parenting plan providing for equal timesharing. In April 2023, the mother petitioned to relocate with the children to San Diego; after a four-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The trial court found that the mother initially met her burden to show that relocation was in the children's best interests but concluded that the father met his shifted burden after presenting evidence that he was equally capable of meeting the children's needs. The Third District reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The order denying the mother's relocation petition is reversed in its entirety, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.