Few decisions in family law carry more risk than moving with a child without proper authorization. A parent who relocates with a minor in violation of a court order or Florida’s relocation statute can face consequences that extend well beyond the family courtroom. Civil sanctions including contempt, modification of timesharing, and substantial fee awards are common. In more serious cases, the same conduct can support criminal charges, including felony charges under Florida law. The intersection of family law and criminal law in this area is one of the most consequential subjects in Florida parenting disputes, and one of the most misunderstood by parents who take action without first consulting counsel.
The short answer to the question posed by this guide is yes. A parent can absolutely face criminal charges for moving with a child under certain circumstances in Florida. Whether charges are actually filed in any specific situation depends on a range of factors including the existence and terms of any court order, the intent behind the move, the location to which the child is taken, and the practical response of the targeted parent and law enforcement. The longer answer requires a careful walk through the statutes, the family court framework, and the practical realities of how these cases unfold in Hillsborough County and across Florida.
This guide explains what the law requires before a parent can move with a child, what happens when those requirements are violated, when criminal exposure attaches, and what parents on both sides of these situations should understand about their rights and obligations.
The Basic Framework Governing Parental Moves
Florida law treats parental relocation as a regulated event when minor children are involved and the parents share parental responsibility, timesharing, or live in different households. The governing statute is Florida Statute 61.13001, which establishes specific procedures that must be followed before a parent can change the residence of a child by more than fifty miles for at least sixty consecutive days. The statute applies whether the parents have a final judgment of dissolution, a paternity order, an existing parenting plan, or are involved in a pending case.
The fifty mile, sixty day threshold matters. Moves within fifty miles, regardless of duration, do not trigger the formal relocation procedure, although they can still raise issues if they make compliance with the parenting plan impractical. Moves beyond fifty miles for less than sixty days, such as extended summer visits with relatives, also fall outside the formal procedure, although other parts of the parenting plan may govern such travel. The procedural requirements of the statute kick in when both thresholds are met.
Two paths exist for accomplishing a relocation that meets these thresholds. The first is a written agreement signed by both parents, ratified by the court. The second is a petition to relocate filed with the court, served on the other parent, and resolved either through default if no objection is filed or through an evidentiary hearing if an objection is filed.
A parent who simply moves without using either path is in violation of the statute. That violation is the gateway to both civil and potential criminal consequences.
What the Relocation Statute Actually Requires
The statutory procedure for parental relocation is detailed, and getting it right requires careful attention. Several key requirements apply.
The agreement path requires a written document signed by both parents. The agreement must reflect consent to the relocation, define a revised access or timesharing schedule, and address transportation arrangements. The agreement must be presented to the court for ratification. The court generally ratifies agreements that meet statutory requirements, although the court retains discretion to evaluate whether the proposed arrangement serves the child’s best interests.
The petition path requires the relocating parent to file a verified petition that includes specific information set out in the statute. Required elements include a description of the location to which the parent intends to move, the specific address if known, the home telephone number, the date of the intended move, the reasons for the relocation, a job offer or written description of employment if relocation is for employment, and a proposed revised timesharing schedule including transportation arrangements. The petition must contain a notice that informs the other parent of their right to object and the deadline for doing so.
The other parent has twenty days from service of the petition to file a verified response objecting to the relocation. If no timely objection is filed, the court may allow the relocation by default after determining that the relocation is in the child’s best interest, although in practice many courts still require some evidentiary basis for this finding even on default. If an objection is filed, the matter proceeds to an evidentiary hearing where the court evaluates the relocation under the eleven factors set forth in the statute.
The factors the court considers in a contested relocation include the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent, siblings, and other significant persons. The age and developmental stage of the child, the impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child are all considered. The child’s preference, if the child is of sufficient age and maturity, is also a factor. Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the relocating parent and the child, including financial or emotional benefits or educational opportunities, is examined. The reasons for and against the relocation are weighed, including the parent’s employment and economic circumstances. The court also considers the career and educational opportunities available to the objecting parent if the relocation occurs and any history of substance abuse or domestic violence by either parent.
A relocation accomplished without using either the agreement path or the petition path is a violation of the statute regardless of whether the move would have been approved had the procedure been followed. The procedural violation alone creates exposure.
Civil Consequences for Improper Relocation
When a parent relocates without authorization, the family court has substantial tools available to address the violation. These tools are independent of any criminal exposure and are typically the first response in most cases.
A motion for contempt is one of the most direct remedies. The relocating parent has violated either the existing parenting plan, the relocation statute, or both. A finding of contempt can result in fines, attorney fee awards, makeup timesharing, and in serious cases incarceration until the contemnor purges the contempt by complying with the court’s order, which often means returning the child.
An order requiring the return of the child to Florida is a common response to unauthorized relocation. The court’s order can be backed by a writ of bodily attachment for the parent or, in appropriate circumstances, an order requiring law enforcement assistance in returning the child. When the relocation has crossed state lines, the order can be domesticated in the receiving state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act for enforcement there.
Modification of the parenting plan is another available remedy. Florida courts have repeatedly held that a parent’s willful and unauthorized relocation can constitute a substantial change in circumstances supporting modification, and the modification can include a substantial reduction in or restructuring of the relocating parent’s timesharing. In serious cases, the court can transfer primary residential responsibility to the parent who remained in Florida, particularly when the relocating parent has demonstrated a willingness to defy court orders and undermine the other parent’s relationship with the child.
Awards of attorney fees and costs are routine in successful enforcement actions. Florida law specifically authorizes fee awards in relocation cases where the action of one party necessitated the litigation, and unauthorized relocation is a paradigmatic example.
The civil response is generally faster than the criminal one. Family courts can hear emergency motions on short notice, and orders requiring the return of a child can issue within days of the unauthorized move when the facts are clear.
When Conduct Becomes Criminal
The criminal exposure for unauthorized relocation arises primarily under two Florida statutes, with potential federal exposure in cases involving interstate or international elements.
Florida Statute 787.03 establishes the offense of interference with custody. The statute provides that whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice any child under the age of eighteen from the custody of the child’s parent, guardian, or other lawful custodian commits the offense. The offense is generally a felony of the third degree, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The statute is broad enough to reach a parent who takes a child in violation of an existing court order. Although the statute speaks of taking a child from the custody of a parent or guardian, it has been applied to a parent whose conduct violates the rights of the other parent under a court order. The reasoning is straightforward. A parenting plan or final judgment establishes the legal framework for the child’s custody, and a parent who acts contrary to that framework lacks lawful authority for the act.
Florida Statute 787.04 specifically addresses removal of minors from the state. The statute provides that it is a felony to remove a minor from the state, conceal a minor from the minor’s parent, or take a minor across state lines or transport a minor outside the United States with the intent to deprive the parent of contact in violation of a court order. Different subsections address different conduct, with penalties ranging from third-degree to second-degree felonies depending on the circumstances and intent.
Florida custody interference under these statutes does not require a successful permanent abduction. The conduct is the offense. A parent who takes a child out of state in violation of a court order has potentially completed the offense the moment the state line is crossed, even if the parent is later located and the child is returned. The intent element matters, but intent can be inferred from circumstances including the absence of authorization, the failure to communicate with the other parent, the destination, and the duration of the unauthorized absence.
Federal exposure can also arise in some cases. The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1204, makes it a federal felony for a parent to remove a child from the United States or retain a child outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights. The statute carries a sentence of up to three years in federal prison. The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act work in tandem to ensure that custody orders from one state are honored in others, although these statutes are primarily civil in operation.
When a child is taken to a foreign country, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction may provide a remedy for the left behind parent if the receiving country is a treaty signatory. The Hague process is a civil mechanism, separate from any criminal action, but it can produce the return of a child to the country of habitual residence on an expedited basis when the conditions are met.
What Distinguishes a Civil Case from a Criminal One
The same conduct can give rise to civil consequences alone, criminal consequences alone, or both. Several factors influence which path actually unfolds in any given case.
The egregiousness of the conduct matters significantly. A parent who moves a child fifty-five miles within Florida without filing the required petition is technically in violation of the statute, but criminal prosecution is unlikely. A parent who takes a child to another state, conceals the child’s location, and refuses to communicate with the other parent has engaged in conduct that more clearly fits the criminal statutes and is more likely to attract criminal attention.
The presence and clarity of a court order is also important. Conduct that violates a clear, unambiguous court order is far more likely to be prosecuted than conduct in a more ambiguous situation. A parent operating during an ongoing case where the parenting framework is in flux may have stronger arguments against criminal liability than a parent ignoring a final judgment.
The response of the targeted parent affects the trajectory. Law enforcement and prosecutors generally take their cues from the parent on the receiving end. A targeted parent who promptly contacts law enforcement, files a report, and presents documentation of the court order and the violation creates the conditions for a criminal investigation. A targeted parent who pursues only civil remedies may produce only civil consequences, even when the underlying facts could have supported criminal action.
The location to which the child is taken matters as well. Local law enforcement may have limited tools when a child has been taken to another state, but the involvement of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and federal agencies expands the available resources for interstate or international cases. Cases involving federal exposure tend to attract more attention from prosecutors than cases that remain within state borders.
The presence of aggravating factors increases criminal exposure. Concealment of the child’s location, use of false identification or aliases, removal of the child to a country without strong custody enforcement infrastructure, and history of similar conduct all heighten the seriousness with which authorities respond. A pattern of escalating defiance is more likely to result in criminal charges than an isolated incident, even if the isolated incident technically meets the statutory definition.
The Practical Sequence in a Typical Florida Case
Most cases involving unauthorized relocation follow a recognizable sequence. Understanding the sequence helps both potential relocating parents and parents who have been left behind to make informed decisions.
The pattern often begins with growing tension in the parenting relationship. The parent considering a move may have a job opportunity, a new relationship, or family circumstances that are pulling them toward another location. Communication with the other parent breaks down, sometimes because the considering parent anticipates resistance and sometimes because the relationship is already strained. The parent decides to move and either does not consult counsel or consults counsel inadequately.
The move occurs. Sometimes the move is presented to the other parent as a fait accompli with an offer of revised visitation. Sometimes the move occurs without warning, with the relocating parent simply not returning the child after a scheduled visit or vacation. The other parent begins to recognize that something more than a temporary absence is happening.
The targeted parent contacts a Tampa divorce lawyer, files an emergency motion in the existing family case, and obtains an order requiring the return of the child. The order is served on the relocating parent, who then has to decide whether to comply. If the parent complies, the case typically proceeds along civil lines, with substantial consequences but no criminal exposure beyond what may have already been generated by the initial conduct. If the parent refuses to comply or has concealed the child’s location, the case escalates.
Law enforcement involvement begins at this point in many cases. The targeted parent files a report and presents the court order. Local law enforcement may pursue the matter directly when the child can be located within their jurisdiction. When the child is in another state, the case typically requires coordination among law enforcement agencies and may attract federal involvement when the conduct fits the federal statute.
The criminal investigation, if one occurs, focuses on the elements of the relevant statutes. Investigators document the existence of the court order, the parent’s awareness of the order, and the conduct that violated it. Charges are filed by the state attorney’s office in the appropriate county. Extradition may be required when the parent and child are in another state.
Throughout this process, the civil case continues. The family court typically modifies the parenting plan substantially in response to the unauthorized move, often transferring primary timesharing or restricting the relocating parent’s contact with the child going forward. The civil and criminal cases run on parallel tracks, with developments in one often influencing the other.
How Tampa Family Courts Handle Relocation Disputes
Hillsborough County family courts handle a substantial volume of relocation cases. The local bench has substantial experience with the statutory framework and with the practical issues that arise when relocations are proposed or have occurred.
The court’s approach to a properly filed petition to relocate generally focuses on the eleven statutory factors and the specific facts presented. Courts give meaningful weight to the proposed revised timesharing schedule, the practicality of maintaining the relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent, and the genuine reasons supporting the move. Petitions supported by concrete employment offers, established family connections in the new location, and detailed plans for preserving the relationship with the other parent generally fare better than petitions resting on more vague justifications.
The court’s approach to unauthorized relocation is far less forgiving. A parent who has moved without authorization and is then haled into court for emergency proceedings starts at a significant disadvantage. The court’s first concern is the location and welfare of the child, and the parent who took unilateral action has typically lost the presumption of good faith that the family court would otherwise extend.
Modifications imposed in response to unauthorized relocation in Hillsborough County have included substantial reductions in timesharing for the relocating parent, transfer of primary timesharing to the parent who remained in Florida, restrictions on travel with the child without specific court approval, and orders requiring the relocating parent to bear the costs of transportation for the child to maintain a relationship with the other parent. The specific remedy varies with the facts, but the general direction is consistent. The court protects its orders and discourages future violations through meaningful consequences.
What a Parent Considering a Move Should Do
A parent who is contemplating a move with a child should approach the issue with care and with timely legal advice. Several principles apply.
The first is that informal arrangements are insufficient. A verbal agreement with the other parent, a text message exchange, or even a written agreement that has not been ratified by the court provides only limited protection. The other parent can change position, and without a court order ratifying the agreement, enforcement becomes difficult. The other parent could even file an action alleging that the move occurred without proper authorization, putting the relocating parent in the position of having to prove an oral or unratified agreement.
The second is that the petition path should not be feared. The procedural mechanism exists precisely for parents in this situation. A well prepared petition with strong factual support, presented to a family court that takes its statutory role seriously, can produce a court order authorizing the move and adjusting the parenting plan accordingly. The cost and time required for a petition is a small price to pay for the legal certainty it provides.
The third is that timing matters. A parent who is committed to a move should begin the legal process as early as possible, ideally before any irreversible commitments are made in the new location. Filing a petition while still maintaining the existing residence preserves the parent’s flexibility and allows the case to proceed without the pressure of an impending deadline. A parent who has already accepted a job, signed a lease, and given notice to a current employer is in a weaker position when the petition is heard.
The fourth is that good faith matters. The eleven statutory factors include consideration of the reasons for and against the relocation. A parent whose stated reasons are weak or whose conduct suggests an effort to undermine the other parent’s relationship with the child often fares poorly. A parent whose move is supported by genuine economic, family, or quality of life considerations and who proposes a workable revised timesharing schedule generally fares better.
The fifth is that consultation with counsel is essential. A parent contemplating a move with a child should consult with a Tampa divorce lawyer experienced with relocation cases before taking any irreversible step. The legal landscape is complex enough that lay assumptions are often wrong, and the consequences of getting it wrong are severe.
What a Parent Should Do If the Other Parent Has Moved Without Authorization
A parent who discovers that the other parent has moved with their child without authorization faces a different set of considerations. The first principle is that prompt action is far better than delayed action. The legal tools available are most effective when used quickly, and the longer an unauthorized situation persists, the more complicated the response becomes.
The first step in most cases is consultation with a Tampa divorce lawyer experienced with these situations. The lawyer can rapidly assess the factual and legal posture, identify the appropriate motion or petition, and begin the process of seeking emergency relief. Many lawyers will accept these cases on an expedited basis given the urgency involved.
An emergency motion is often the appropriate vehicle. The motion can seek an order requiring the immediate return of the child, restrictions on further travel, and other interim relief. Florida family courts have procedures for hearing emergency motions on short notice when the facts warrant.
Law enforcement involvement is appropriate in many cases, particularly when the conduct potentially fits the criminal statutes or when the child’s location is unknown. The targeted parent should be prepared to provide certified copies of the operative court orders, documentation of the violations, and any information available about the child’s current or likely location. Coordination between counsel, law enforcement, and possibly federal authorities is sometimes necessary in cases involving interstate or international elements.
Documentation is essential throughout. Communications with the relocating parent, indications of intent, evidence of preparation for the move, and any other relevant information should be preserved and organized. The case may turn on what the relocating parent knew and intended, and the documentary record is often the strongest evidence on these issues.
Working with Counsel on Relocation Matters
Selecting the right counsel for a relocation matter requires attention to several considerations. The lawyer should have substantial experience with Florida’s relocation statute and with the specific procedures used in Hillsborough County family courts. The lawyer should understand both the family law and criminal law dimensions of these cases and should be capable of coordinating with criminal counsel when necessary. The lawyer should have experience with multi-jurisdictional cases when the facts involve other states or countries.
The initial consultation should focus on developing a clear picture of the facts and the timeline. The lawyer should ask about the existing court orders, the proposed or actual move, the communication between the parents, and the current location and circumstances of the child. The lawyer should also discuss strategy, including whether to file an emergency motion, whether to involve law enforcement, and how to coordinate with counsel in other jurisdictions if needed.
Cost varies significantly based on the complexity of the case. A straightforward petition to relocate that proceeds without serious objection may cost a few thousand dollars. A contested relocation hearing involving multiple witnesses, expert testimony, and complex factual issues can cost tens of thousands. An emergency motion to address an unauthorized relocation is generally handled on an expedited basis, with costs reflecting the rapid pace of the work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I move with my child to another state if I have full custody?
Even a parent who is the primary residential parent under a Florida parenting plan generally cannot move more than fifty miles for sixty days or more without either the consent of the other parent or a court order. The relocation statute applies whenever a parenting plan or court order is in place, regardless of how parental responsibility or timesharing is allocated. A parent who simply moves based on the assumption that primary residential status authorizes the move is at risk of significant consequences.
What happens if I move with my child without permission in Florida?
The civil consequences include potential contempt findings, fee awards, an order requiring the return of the child, and modification of the parenting plan, sometimes including a transfer of primary timesharing to the other parent. Criminal consequences are also possible under Florida custody interference statutes and can include felony charges, particularly when the move crosses state lines or involves concealment. The specific consequences depend on the facts and on the response of the other parent and law enforcement.
Is taking a child out of state always a felony in Florida?
Not always, but it can be. Florida Statute 787.04 specifically addresses removal of minors from the state and makes it a felony to remove a child or take a child across state lines with the intent to deprive a parent of contact in violation of a court order. The intent element is important, and not every interstate trip is a violation. However, taking a child to another state with the intent to evade or violate a court order is potentially a felony, and the offense can be charged even if the child is later returned.
My ex took our child on a trip and has not returned. What do I do?
Take action quickly. Contact a family law attorney without delay, and depending on the circumstances, contact local law enforcement as well. An emergency motion in the existing family law case can typically be filed and heard quickly when there is a credible concern about an unauthorized retention of the child. The combination of civil action through the family court and possible criminal investigation through law enforcement often produces a faster response than either alone.
Can my ex be charged with a crime for moving the kids out of Florida without telling me?
Yes, in appropriate cases. The relevant statutes include Florida Statute 787.03 covering interference with custody and Florida Statute 787.04 covering removal of minors from the state. Whether charges are actually filed depends on the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, including the existence and clarity of any court order, the intent of the relocating parent, and the broader circumstances. Florida custody interference cases involving interstate moves are taken seriously by prosecutors, particularly when concealment or sustained noncompliance is involved.
What if there is no court order and we are not divorced?
The relocation statute applies when an action for divorce, paternity, or other proceeding is pending or has resulted in a final order. If no such proceeding has occurred and no order is in place, both parents generally retain equal rights to the child, and the analysis becomes more complicated. A parent contemplating a move in this situation should consult counsel before acting, as the act of moving may itself prompt the other parent to file a paternity or other action that will quickly result in court intervention. In addition, certain conduct may still support criminal exposure even without a preexisting court order, particularly when the move involves concealment or interstate flight.
How fast can a court order the return of a child taken without authorization?
Florida family courts can hear emergency motions on short notice, and orders requiring the return of a child are sometimes entered within days of the unauthorized move. Speed depends on the court’s calendar, the clarity of the facts, and the responsiveness of the parties. The Hillsborough County family court system is generally responsive to genuine emergencies, particularly when the moving party presents a clear court order, documentation of the violation, and credible information about the child’s location.
Will I lose custody if I move without permission?
A loss of timesharing is a real possibility, and in serious cases the modification can include a transfer of primary timesharing to the parent who remained in Florida. Florida courts have repeatedly held that a parent’s willful and unauthorized relocation can constitute a substantial change in circumstances supporting modification, and the consequences are often severe. The specific outcome depends on the facts, but the risk of substantial loss of timesharing is real and should be weighed carefully before any unauthorized move is contemplated.
Can I be extradited from another state for taking my child to Florida?
Possibly, depending on the laws of the originating state and the charges filed there. Most states have similar statutes addressing parental kidnapping or interference with custody, and extradition between states for these offenses is well established. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ensures that custody orders are respected across state lines, and federal statutes can support federal charges in certain interstate cases. A parent contemplating a move from another state into Florida that violates an order from the originating state should consult counsel before taking any action.
What if I move because of safety concerns about the other parent?
Safety concerns can be a legitimate basis for a relocation, but the proper response is to seek court authorization rather than to act unilaterally. A parent who moves without authorization based on safety concerns will be in a stronger position if the concerns are documented, are objectively credible, and the parent immediately seeks court intervention upon arrival in the new location. A parent who simply takes the children and disappears, even when motivated by genuine concerns, faces significant legal exposure and may lose timesharing as a result. Emergency motions for protection are available in Florida family courts and should be the first response when safety is at stake.
Final Thoughts
Moving with a child in Florida is not a decision that should be made unilaterally. The relocation statute provides a clear procedural path for parents who genuinely need to move, and following that path produces legal certainty and protects the parent from civil and criminal exposure. A parent who instead acts unilaterally faces a substantial range of consequences, from civil contempt and modification of timesharing to potential felony charges under Florida custody interference statutes and federal law.
The framework exists for good reasons. Children benefit from stable relationships with both parents, and unilateral action by one parent often disrupts those relationships in ways that cannot be undone. Florida courts have developed substantial experience with these matters and have shown a clear willingness to enforce the rules through meaningful consequences for parents who ignore them.
For a parent contemplating a move, the message is to use the legal process. The procedural requirements are not insurmountable, and the cost and time involved are far less than the cost of dealing with the consequences of an unauthorized move. For a parent who has been left behind by an unauthorized move, the message is to act quickly and decisively, with experienced counsel guiding the process. The legal tools are powerful when used promptly, and the family courts in Hillsborough County and throughout Florida are equipped to respond when the facts warrant.
In every case, the focus should remain on the children. The relocation framework exists to balance the legitimate interests of parents in geographic mobility against the children’s interest in maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents. Decisions made with the children’s wellbeing at the center are generally better received by courts and produce better outcomes for everyone involved over time.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, 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.