You do not have to move out of state or across the country for Florida’s parental relocation law to apply to you. Under Florida law, moving more than fifty miles from your current principal residence for more than sixty days triggers the relocation statute, and with it a set of legal requirements that can significantly affect your parenting plan, your child’s custody arrangement, and your relationship with your co-parent.
For Tampa area families, this fifty-mile rule has real practical implications. A move from one side of the Tampa Bay metro area to another, or a move to a location north or south of the city, can cross the threshold depending on where the parents currently live. Understanding exactly how the statute works, what it requires, and what happens when parents do not follow it is essential for any divorced or separated parent in Florida who is considering a move.
What Florida’s Relocation Statute Actually Requires
Florida Statute 61.13001 governs parental relocation. The statute applies whenever a parent who is subject to a custody or timesharing order proposes to establish, or establish permanently, a new principal residence at a location more than fifty miles from the current principal residence, and that new residence is intended to be for more than sixty days.
Both thresholds matter. The fifty-mile distance and the sixty-day duration are cumulative requirements. A temporary move for employment, a medical procedure, or an extended family stay that will last fewer than sixty days does not trigger the statute even if it exceeds fifty miles. A move within fifty miles does not trigger the statute even if it is permanent. Both conditions must be met for the relocation statute to apply.
The fifty-mile measurement is from the current principal residence, not from the other parent’s home. If the relocating parent currently lives in one part of the Tampa Bay area and proposes to move to a location more than fifty miles from that address, the statute applies regardless of how far the new location is from the other parent.
For many Tampa families, this threshold is closer than people realize. A family living in South Tampa would trigger the statute by moving to a location more than fifty miles away, which could include some areas of Hillsborough County’s northern or eastern edges, as well as Pasco County, Hernando County, Polk County, and other surrounding areas. The specific geography matters, and parents who are considering a move should calculate the distance carefully before assuming the statute does not apply.
A Tampa divorce lawyer advising a parent who is considering a move will calculate the distance carefully and advise whether the proposed move triggers the statute, because the consequences of relocating without following the required procedure are severe.
The Two Paths Under the Relocation Statute
When a parent wants to relocate in a way that triggers the statute, there are two legally permissible paths. The first is obtaining the written agreement of every other person entitled to timesharing. The second is obtaining a court order authorizing the relocation. There is no third path, and attempting to relocate without following one of these procedures has serious consequences.
Path One: Written Agreement
If all parties entitled to timesharing with the child, including the non-relocating parent and any other person with court-ordered access, agree in writing to the relocation, the parties can sign a written agreement that addresses the proposed relocation and any changes to the timesharing schedule that the relocation necessitates. The agreement must be reflected in an order ratified or incorporated by the court.
The requirement that the agreement be court-ratified is important. A private agreement between the parents that is never submitted to the court is not sufficient. The court must approve it and incorporate it into an order before it becomes legally binding and before the relocation can proceed on that basis.
For parents who are on cooperative terms and can agree on the relocation and its implications for the parenting plan, this path is more efficient and less expensive than a contested relocation proceeding. However, the other parent’s cooperation cannot be assumed or taken for granted, and a parent who proceeds with a relocation based on a verbal agreement or an unwritten understanding that the other parent will not object is taking a significant legal risk.
Path Two: Court Order
When the other parent does not consent to the relocation, or when the parties cannot reach agreement on the modified parenting plan that the relocation would require, the relocating parent must file a petition with the court seeking authorization to relocate. This petition triggers a legal process that can include temporary orders, discovery, and ultimately a hearing or trial on the relocation question.
The statute establishes what the petition must contain: the intended new residence address, the mailing address if different, the home telephone number, the new employment address and telephone number if applicable, the date of the intended move, the specific reasons for the proposed relocation, and a proposed revised parenting plan that addresses how the non-relocating parent’s timesharing will be maintained after the relocation.
A Florida divorce attorney who regularly handles relocation cases will prepare a comprehensive petition that addresses all required elements and presents the relocating parent’s case in the most favorable light from the outset.
The Legal Standard for Relocation: What Courts Actually Evaluate
When a relocation petition is contested, the court conducts an evidentiary hearing and determines whether to authorize the relocation based on the child’s best interests. The statute lists the factors the court must consider, and those factors shape the entire relocation case.
The reasons for the proposed relocation. This is often the central factor in contested relocation cases. Courts look at whether the relocation serves a legitimate purpose and whether that purpose is genuine. A move for a significantly better employment opportunity, to be near family who provides childcare support, to access better educational or medical resources for the child, or for other concrete and legitimate reasons is evaluated differently from a move that appears designed primarily to distance the child from the other parent.
The reasons given by the objecting party for the opposition. Courts also evaluate whether the objecting parent’s resistance to the relocation is grounded in the child’s best interests or primarily in the parent’s desire to maintain geographic proximity to the child for their own reasons. A parent who objects to a relocation solely because they do not want the child to be farther away, without any specific concern about how the relocation will affect the child’s wellbeing, may find their objection given less weight.
The history and quality of each parent’s relationship with the child and the likely impact of the relocation on the child’s emotional, developmental, and educational needs. Courts look at how the relocation will affect the child’s relationships with each parent and with siblings, extended family, teachers, coaches, and others who are significant in the child’s life.
The age and needs of the child, and the child’s ability to maintain relationships with both parents if relocation is permitted. Younger children, children with special needs, and children for whom frequent contact with both parents is particularly important are treated differently from older, more adaptable children. Courts evaluate whether the specific child can maintain a meaningful relationship with the non-relocating parent under the proposed revised parenting plan.
Whether the objecting parent has complied with existing court orders. A parent who has consistently violated timesharing orders, denied access, or otherwise failed to honor the existing parenting plan has less credibility when objecting to a relocation than one who has been cooperative and compliant.
The feasibility of a revised parenting plan that preserves the non-relocating parent’s relationship with the child.Courts look at whether the proposed revised parenting plan is realistic, whether it can actually be implemented, and whether it provides the non-relocating parent with a meaningful and continuing relationship with the child.
The child’s preference, if the court determines the child is old enough to express a preference. For older children, expressed preferences about the move are considered, though courts are careful about the extent to which a child’s stated preference reflects genuine desire versus parental influence.
Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent. Courts consider the overall improvement to the family’s circumstances that the relocation might provide, including economic improvement, educational opportunity, and quality of life factors.
Other relevant factors. The statute’s catch-all provision allows courts to consider any other relevant factors, giving judges flexibility to address unusual circumstances that the specific enumerated factors do not capture.
A Tampa divorce attorney handling a contested relocation case will build an evidentiary record that addresses each of these factors directly, presenting the court with a complete picture rather than relying on a single compelling factor.
The Presumption Question: Does the Relocating Parent Bear the Burden?
Under Florida Statute 61.13001(7), when a petition for relocation is filed, the burden is on the relocating parent to prove that the relocation is in the child’s best interest. This is different from the starting point in a general timesharing dispute, where the 2023 equal timesharing presumption applies.
Once the relocating parent establishes that the relocation is in the child’s best interest, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to demonstrate that the relocation is not in the child’s best interest. The statute essentially places the burden of proof on the relocating parent as a threshold matter, while the objecting parent bears the burden of rebuttal once the relocating parent has made their showing.
Courts in Hillsborough County apply this burden carefully in contested relocation hearings. A relocating parent who cannot affirmatively demonstrate that the move serves the child’s best interests faces a difficult hearing regardless of how legitimate the personal reasons for the move may be.
Temporary Relocation Orders and the Status Quo
One of the most practically significant aspects of the relocation statute is the prohibition on relocating pending a court order when the other parent objects. A parent who wants to relocate and faces an objecting co-parent cannot simply move and deal with the legal consequences later. Moving before obtaining a court order authorizing the relocation, when the other parent has objected, exposes the relocating parent to serious legal consequences.
If a parent relocates in violation of the statute, the court can order the return of the child to the original location pending resolution of the relocation petition. Courts treat unauthorized relocation as a significant factor that weighs against the relocating parent in the subsequent hearing. A parent who has demonstrated willingness to violate court orders and to act unilaterally has undermined their credibility on every other issue in the case.
The statute gives courts broad authority to address violations, including ordering the return of the child, modifying the existing parenting plan, and awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the non-relocating parent. In some cases, courts have held a relocating parent in contempt for relocating in violation of the statute.
A divorce lawyer in Tampa advising a parent who has already relocated without following the statute will assess the situation honestly and develop a strategy for addressing the violation while minimizing the legal consequences. Prevention is far better than cure in this situation, which is why consulting with an attorney before moving is strongly advisable.
Temporary Orders During a Pending Relocation Case
While a relocation petition is pending before the court, the existing parenting plan remains in effect. The relocating parent typically remains in place until the court issues an order, though there are mechanisms for temporary orders that address the situation pending final resolution.
In some cases, particularly when the relocating parent has a genuine and time-sensitive reason for the move, courts will issue a temporary relocation order that authorizes the move pending final determination of the petition. This is more likely when the employment or other opportunity motivating the relocation will not wait for a full hearing, and when the proposed revised parenting plan appears workable.
In other cases, courts deny temporary relocation and require the parent to remain in place until the relocation petition is finally resolved. The practical consequence is that a parent who wants to accept a job opportunity in another location may have to choose between the job and the custody arrangement, at least on a temporary basis.
A Tampa divorce lawyer handling a relocation case where timing is critical will assess whether a motion for temporary relocation authorization is appropriate and what the court is likely to do with such a motion given the specific facts.
What Happens to the Parenting Plan If Relocation Is Authorized
When a court authorizes relocation, the existing parenting plan must be modified to reflect the new circumstances. A parenting plan that worked when the parents lived close together typically does not work when one parent has relocated significantly farther away.
The modified plan typically involves longer but less frequent visits for the non-relocating parent, often concentrated during school breaks, holidays, and summer vacation. The logistics of travel, including who pays for transportation, how the child is transported, and what happens when travel plans change, need to be addressed specifically.
Courts also address decision-making authority in the modified plan, particularly when distance will make coordination between the parents more challenging. The communication provisions of the plan, including how parents will communicate with each other and how the non-relocating parent will maintain contact with the child between visits, are significant.
The financial implications of the relocation for child support may also be addressed. A relocation that significantly changes the timesharing arrangement can affect the child support calculation, because Florida’s child support guidelines include adjustments for the number of overnight stays each parent has with the child.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the fifty-mile rule apply if I am only moving temporarily for a few months?
The relocation statute applies to moves exceeding fifty miles that are intended to last more than sixty days. A temporary move of less than sixty days does not trigger the statute even if it exceeds fifty miles. If your move is genuinely temporary and less than sixty days, notify the other parent of the temporary relocation, the date of your return, and your contact information during the temporary period. Document your communication in writing.
What if my co-parent agrees to the relocation but then changes their mind after I move?
A verbal agreement to a relocation is not legally sufficient. The relocation statute requires a written agreement that is ratified by the court. A parent who relies on a verbal agreement, moves, and then faces an objection from the other parent after the fact is in a difficult legal position. Obtaining a court-ratified written agreement before any move of more than fifty miles is the only way to have a legally protected right to be at the new location.
Can I move fifty miles away if there is no formal court order regarding custody?
If there is no existing court order governing custody or timesharing, the relocation statute does not technically apply in the same way, but moving with a child and placing the child more than fifty miles from the other parent’s location without the other parent’s knowledge or agreement can still result in emergency legal proceedings. A parent who takes a child and relocates without notifying the other parent may face an emergency motion for return of the child and other legal consequences. Establishing a formal parenting plan before relocating, even if no court order currently exists, is strongly advisable.
Does a job offer in a city more than fifty miles away automatically justify relocation?
A legitimate employment opportunity is a significant factor in the court’s relocation analysis, but it does not automatically justify relocation. Courts evaluate the nature of the opportunity, whether equivalent employment exists closer to the current location, the financial benefit of the new position relative to the disruption to the child’s life, and the proposed revised parenting plan for maintaining the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent. A strong employment opportunity combined with a realistic revised parenting plan and a genuine improvement to the family’s circumstances makes a more compelling case than the employment opportunity alone.
What if the non-relocating parent is not involved in the child’s life? Does their objection still matter?
A non-relocating parent’s level of actual involvement is relevant to the relocation analysis. A parent who has had minimal involvement with the child, who has not exercised timesharing regularly, or who has otherwise demonstrated limited engagement with the child’s life has less standing to object to a relocation than one who has been consistently involved. However, a court order that grants timesharing rights remains legally valid regardless of actual exercise, and an objection from a legally entitled parent triggers the statutory process even when that parent’s involvement has been limited. A Florida divorce attorney can advise on how the other parent’s lack of involvement affects the strength of their objection.
What happens at the relocation hearing if I have already moved?
If a parent has already relocated without following the statute and without court authorization, the relocation hearing will address both the merits of the relocation and the unauthorized move itself. Courts treat the unauthorized relocation seriously, and the parent who moved without authorization may face orders to return the child to the original location pending final determination, as well as sanctions, attorney’s fees, and adverse factual findings about their willingness to comply with court orders. The hearing will still address whether the relocation serves the child’s best interests, but the unauthorized move is a significant negative factor in that analysis.
Can the non-relocating parent also move if the relocating parent is allowed to leave?
Yes. The relocation statute addresses the relocating parent’s proposed move, not the non-relocating parent’s options. If the court authorizes the relocation and the non-relocating parent decides to follow the relocating parent to the new location or to move elsewhere, that parent is free to do so as long as they remain within fifty miles of their current principal residence, or follow the statute themselves if they also propose to move more than fifty miles. The existing parenting plan may need to be modified again if both parents change locations significantly.
Florida’s fifty-mile relocation rule affects Tampa families more often than people realize, because the threshold is not as large as it sounds in a metropolitan area where parents may already live significant distances apart. A move that feels local can cross the statutory threshold, and a move that crosses it without following the required procedure can have serious consequences for the parenting plan, for the parent’s credibility in court, and for the child’s stability. For parents in the Tampa Bay area who are considering a move or who are dealing with a co-parent’s proposed relocation, working with a Tampa divorce lawyer who handles relocation cases regularly is the most reliable way to navigate the statute correctly and protect both the parent’s rights and the child’s best interests.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.