Few things in family law feel as destabilizing as learning that your parenting plan is about to change. You built a routine. Your child adjusted to it. And now the other parent has filed a petition asking a judge to rearrange it — maybe shifting the time-sharing schedule, maybe handing them the final say on your child’s school or medical care.
Here’s something many parents don’t realize until it’s too late: a Florida judge cannot make that change simply because it seems like a good idea. The law requires a specific showing, and it requires the judge to say so in writing. When those written findings are missing, the modification can be reversed on appeal — even if the underlying decision might have been defensible.
That’s exactly what happened in Edwards v. Williams, decided December 23, 2025 by Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal. A mother lost decision-making authority over her child’s education and medical care in the trial court, then got that judgment reversed because the judge never made two specific findings the statute required. It’s a case any Tampa divorce lawyer handling post-judgment custody work should know, and it carries a practical lesson for parents on both sides of a modification fight. If you’re facing one right now, this is worth understanding before you walk into a hearing.
What Happened in Edwards v. Williams: The Plain-English Version
The parties, Jennifer Edwards and Jeremy Williams, had a minor child together and a parenting plan entered in August 2021. Because they lived far apart, it was a long-distance parenting plan — the kind Florida courts use when the distance between households makes a typical week-to-week schedule impossible.
The father later filed a supplemental petition asking the court to modify that plan. The trial court held a hearing and then entered a supplemental final judgment making two significant changes: the parents would share parental responsibility, but the father would have ultimate decision-making authority on issues relating to the child’s education and medical care.
That’s a meaningful shift. “Shared parental responsibility” in Florida means both parents confer and jointly make major decisions about the child. When a court grants one parent ultimate authority over a specific category, it means that if the parents genuinely disagree about, say, which school the child attends or which course of treatment to pursue, that parent decides. The other parent still participates in the conversation but no longer has an equal vote on the outcome.
The mother filed a motion for rehearing. Among other arguments, she pointed out that the trial court had not made the findings required under section 61.13(3) of the Florida Statutes — the provision governing when a parenting plan can be changed.
The trial court granted that motion in part. But instead of adding the missing findings, it entered an Amended Supplemental Final Judgment that essentially added a paragraph explaining it was declining to address the statutory factors, because doing so was not in the child’s best interest. The rest of the rehearing motion was denied.
The mother appealed. Notably, the father did not file an answer brief or otherwise participate in the appeal at all.
What the Appellate Court Decided
The Sixth District reversed the modification and sent the case back with instructions.
The court’s analysis was narrow and technical, but the logic is easy to follow once the pieces are laid out.
Florida’s statute — in the version that applied to this case — said that a determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances, plus a determination that the modification is in the child’s best interests. The statute then lists a long series of best-interest factors, running from (a) through (t), that a court is to evaluate.
The trial court’s judgment said the father had met his burden to prove a substantial change in circumstances, and that modifying the long-distance parenting plan was in the child’s best interest.
That sounds close. It wasn’t close enough. The appellate court noted that the trial court never found that the substantial change was also material or unanticipated. Two of the three required descriptors were simply absent from the judgment.
The court reviewed this issue de novo — meaning it looked at the question fresh, without deferring to the trial judge — because whether required statutory findings were included is a legal question rather than a judgment call about the evidence. And it cited established Florida law holding that the failure to include a finding of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change will typically require reversal of a parenting plan modification.
Then came the part that matters most for understanding why the case was sent back rather than simply decided. The appellate court emphasized that it was not in a position to make that determination itself. Appellate courts review records; they don’t make factual findings in the first instance. Even if the evidence in the record might have supported a finding that the change was material and unanticipated, only the trial judge — who heard the testimony and assessed the witnesses — can make that call.
So the Sixth District reversed and remanded for the trial court to make appropriate findings of fact. On remand, the trial judge is to determine whether the existing record contains enough evidence to resolve the issue or whether further proceedings are needed. Every other ground the mother raised was affirmed.
There’s an interesting wrinkle buried in the opinion’s footnotes that’s worth mentioning, because it shows the court being unusually candid. In a footnote, the panel observed that the statute doesn’t appear to expressly require a trial court to make written findings on the change in circumstances — it says a modification shouldn’t occur “without a showing of” such a change, which is arguably a burden-of-proof instruction rather than a findings requirement. But the court noted it was bound by its own earlier decision in Davis v. Davis, which had considered the same language and held that findings are required. In other words, the panel flagged a genuine question about the rule while faithfully applying it. That kind of transparency is useful to know about, though for practical purposes the rule stands.
The Words That Decide Modification Cases
Since three specific words carried this entire appeal, here’s what each one actually means in Florida practice.
Substantial. The change has to be significant, not trivial. A parent switching jobs, moving across town, or hitting a rough patch generally won’t clear this bar on its own. Courts are looking for something that genuinely alters the circumstances the original plan was built around.
Material. The change has to actually matter to the child and to the parenting arrangement. A change can be large in the abstract but irrelevant to the plan. Materiality is the link between the change and the reason a different schedule or decision-making structure is warranted.
Unanticipated. Under the version of the statute in Edwards, the change couldn’t have been foreseeable when the original plan was entered. This one trips people up constantly. If a parent’s plan already contemplated that they might relocate for military service, or if everyone knew the child would start kindergarten in two years, those developments were anticipated — and therefore couldn’t support a modification, no matter how disruptive they turned out to be.
Together these three requirements exist for a reason that has nothing to do with technicality: stability. Florida law treats an existing parenting plan as something children rely on. Courts deliberately make modification difficult so that parenting plans don’t become a permanent open invitation to relitigate, dragging children through repeated rounds of conflict every time one parent becomes dissatisfied. The threshold is high on purpose.
Important: Florida Changed This Law in 2023
This is the single most important thing for a Tampa Bay reader to understand, and it’s the reason the case needs careful reading rather than a quick skim.
The Edwards opinion applied the 2022 version of section 61.13. In a footnote, the court explained that the statute was substantially revised effective July 1, 2023, and no longer includes the requirement that the change be “unanticipated.” The older version applied in Edwards because of when that case arose.
For most parents filing a modification petition in Hillsborough County today, the current standard governs — which means the “unanticipated” element that decided Edwards is no longer part of the test. The requirement that the change be substantial and material remains, as does the best-interests analysis.
That 2023 legislation made other significant changes to Florida’s time-sharing law as well, including establishing a presumption that equal time-sharing is in a child’s best interest as a starting point in these determinations, subject to being overcome by evidence. Anyone comparing a parenting plan entered before mid-2023 to what a court might do today should understand that the legal landscape genuinely shifted.
So why does Edwards still matter?
Because the core lesson survives the amendment entirely. The case wasn’t really about the word “unanticipated.” It was about a trial court entering a judgment that didn’t contain the findings the statute requires, and an appellate court refusing to fill that gap on the trial judge’s behalf. That principle applies to the current statute just as much as the old one — the list of required findings simply got shorter. A judgment today that finds a “substantial change” without addressing materiality has the same vulnerability the judgment in Edwards did.
It also matters for cases still working their way through the system under the older law, and for anyone evaluating a modification entered before the amendment took effect. A Florida divorce attorney reviewing an older judgment needs to know which version of the statute governed it.
Why “Missing Findings” Is a Bigger Deal Than It Sounds
To a non-lawyer, this can look like paperwork. The judge heard the evidence, reached a conclusion, and just didn’t write down every magic word. Does that really justify unwinding the whole thing?
There are a few reasons it does.
Findings are how appellate review actually works. An appellate court can’t read a trial judge’s mind. If the judgment doesn’t explain what the judge found and why, there’s no way to evaluate whether the law was applied correctly. Written findings are the mechanism that makes meaningful review possible at all.
Findings discipline the decision. Requiring a judge to articulate that a change was substantial and material and — under the old law — unanticipated forces an actual analysis of each element. It’s a guard against a court reaching an intuitively appealing result without testing it against the statutory standard.
The remedy is limited but real. Notice what the appellate court did not do. It didn’t restore the mother’s decision-making authority. It didn’t declare the father’s petition meritless. It sent the case back for the trial court to make the findings, which may or may not change the outcome. The trial judge might make the required findings on the existing record and reach the same result. A win on appeal in this posture is a second look, not a reversal of fortune.
The father’s silence didn’t decide it. Worth noting: the father filed no answer brief and made no appearance. The appellate court still analyzed the merits and still affirmed every other ground the mother raised. Not participating in an appeal is risky, but it isn’t an automatic forfeiture — courts evaluate the record regardless.
Modifications carry real weight. Losing an equal voice in your child’s education and medical care isn’t an abstraction. When the stakes are that high, procedural rigor is protection, not pedantry.
Practical Takeaways for Florida Parents
Turning all of this into things you can actually do:
Know which version of the law applies to you. If your case involves a modification petition filed after July 1, 2023, the “unanticipated” requirement is gone and other significant changes apply. If you’re dealing with an older judgment or an older case, the prior framework may govern. This is genuinely confusing territory, and getting it wrong can mean building a case around the wrong standard.
Read your final judgment carefully before it becomes final. Many judgments are drafted by the prevailing party’s attorney and signed by the judge. If the proposed judgment omits required findings, that’s the moment to raise it — not two years later. Ask your attorney to walk you through what the judgment says and, just as importantly, what it doesn’t.
Understand what a motion for rehearing is for. The mother in Edwards filed one specifically to raise the missing findings, and that mattered. Motions for rehearing give the trial court a chance to fix problems before an appeal, and in some circumstances raising an issue there is necessary to preserve it. The deadlines are short — measured in days.
Don’t confuse “difficult” with “impossible.” If you’re the parent seeking a modification, none of this means you can’t succeed. It means you need evidence tied to each element of the standard rather than a general sense that the current arrangement isn’t working. Build the case around the statute.
Don’t confuse “I don’t like this” with a change in circumstances. Frustration with a co-parent, disagreement about parenting styles, or a schedule that has become inconvenient generally won’t clear the bar on its own. Courts protect stability, and that protection is real.
Document things as they happen. Modification cases turn on facts — what changed, when, and how it affected your child. Contemporaneous records of school issues, medical events, missed exchanges, or relocations are far more persuasive than a reconstructed narrative built after the petition is filed.
Take the appeal deadline seriously. Notices of appeal in Florida generally must be filed within 30 days of the final order. That window closes quickly and there is very little flexibility. If something in your judgment seems wrong, get it reviewed immediately.
Remember this applies whether or not you were married. Parenting plan modification law governs divorced parents and never-married parents alike. The statute is about children, not marital status.
Does a Sixth District Ruling Apply in Hillsborough County?
Fair question, and it deserves an honest answer.
Florida has six District Courts of Appeal. The Sixth District, which decided Edwards, was created relatively recently and covers a group of counties in central and southwest Florida — including Charlotte County, where this case originated. Tampa and Hillsborough County fall under the Second District Court of Appeal. So Edwards is not binding on a Tampa judge the way a Second District decision would be.
That said, it carries weight. Under longstanding Florida practice, when a trial court faces an issue on which its own district hasn’t spoken, it generally follows decisions from other districts. And here’s the detail that makes Edwardsespecially relevant locally: the Sixth District supported its reasoning by citing a Second District case for the proposition that a missing finding of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change typically requires reversal of a parenting plan modification. The district that governs Hillsborough County has already endorsed the underlying principle.
The practical approach a Tampa family law attorney would take is to argue the principle through Second District authority, using Edwards as recent, well-reasoned support from a sister district.
One housekeeping note before anyone cites this in a filing: the opinion carries the standard notation that it isn’t final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any such motion is resolved. That’s routine, but it’s always worth confirming a recent decision’s current status.
Talk to a Tampa Divorce Lawyer at The McKinney Law Group
If you’re staring down a petition to modify your parenting plan — or you’re the parent who needs one because your circumstances have genuinely changed — the most useful thing you can do right now is get clear on the actual legal standard rather than the version of it circulating in your head or in a co-parenting group chat.
That’s especially true given how much Florida’s time-sharing law shifted in 2023. Advice that was accurate three years ago may not be accurate today, and a case that would have failed under the old standard might succeed under the current one. Sorting out which rules apply to your situation is exactly the kind of question that benefits from a professional set of eyes.
At The McKinney Law Group, we represent parents throughout the Tampa Bay area in parenting plan modifications, time-sharing disputes, parental responsibility issues, relocation cases, and the full range of matters that follow a Hillsborough County divorce. We know that behind every one of these cases is a parent worried about losing time or losing a voice in their child’s life. Our job is to make sure the record is built properly, the required findings are made, and nothing important gets decided by default.
If your parenting plan is being challenged, or if your circumstances have changed enough that the current plan no longer works, reach out to a Tampa divorce lawyer at The McKinney Law Group. We’ll help you understand where you stand, what the current law requires, and what a realistic path forward looks like. You don’t need to have it all figured out before you call.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it take to change a parenting plan in Florida? Under the current statute, a parent generally must show a substantial and material change in circumstances and that the modification is in the child’s best interests. For cases governed by the pre-July 2023 version of the law, the change also had to be unanticipated. Courts set this bar deliberately high to protect stability for children.
Did Florida really remove the “unanticipated” requirement? Yes. The Edwards opinion notes that section 61.13 was substantially revised effective July 1, 2023, and no longer includes that element. Which version applies to your case depends on its timing, which is worth confirming with a Florida divorce attorney rather than assuming.
What is “ultimate decision-making authority”? It’s when a court awards shared parental responsibility but gives one parent the final say over a specific category — commonly education or medical care. Both parents still confer, but if they can’t agree, the parent with ultimate authority decides. In Edwards, the trial court gave the father that authority over education and medical care.
My judgment doesn’t mention the required findings. Can I appeal? Possibly, but deadlines are short and unforgiving — generally 30 days from the final order for a notice of appeal, with even shorter windows for motions for rehearing. Have a lawyer review the judgment right away rather than waiting.
If I win an appeal, do I get my old parenting plan back? Not necessarily. In Edwards, the appellate court sent the case back for the trial court to make the required findings and to decide whether the existing record was sufficient or more proceedings were needed. The trial court could make the findings and reach the same conclusion. An appeal on this basis buys a proper analysis, not a guaranteed different result.
Why couldn’t the appellate court just make the findings itself? Because appellate courts don’t make factual findings in the first instance. They review what the trial court did. The trial judge heard the testimony and evaluated the witnesses, so that determination belongs to the trial court.
The other parent didn’t respond to my appeal. Do I automatically win? No. In Edwards, the father filed no answer brief and made no appearance, and the appellate court still affirmed most of the mother’s arguments against her. Courts decide appeals on the record and the law, not on who showed up.
Does this apply if we were never married? Yes. Florida’s parenting plan and time-sharing rules govern parents regardless of marital status. The same modification standard applies.
Does a Sixth District case apply to my Tampa case? It’s persuasive rather than binding, since Hillsborough County is in the Second District. But Edwards relies partly on Second District authority for its central point, so the underlying principle is already well established here. A Tampa divorce lawyer familiar with local practice can explain how it fits your facts.
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.