Few things are more emotionally charged than a custody dispute — and few outcomes are more frustrating than walking out of a courtroom with an order that simply does not make sense. If you are a parent navigating a timesharing disagreement in Florida, you need a Tampa divorce lawyer who understands not only what the law says, but how courts are expected to apply it consistently. A January 2024 decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, Ward v. Waters, is a powerful reminder that even well-intentioned trial court rulings can be reversed when they contain internal contradictions — and that Florida’s appellate courts are not afraid to say so.
This case involves a mother, a father, a teenage daughter, and a cross-country custody dispute that stretched from Key West, Florida to Hawaii. At its core, it raises a question that is surprisingly common in modern family law: when a parent moves far away, and the court denies their request to take the child with them, can the court still award that parent extensive long-distance timesharing at the new location? The Third District’s answer — at least without more explanation — was no.
Whether you are dealing with a relocation dispute, trying to establish a permanent parenting plan, or concerned about how a co-parent’s move might affect your child’s stability, the Ward v. Waters decision has lessons that are directly relevant to your situation. Here is what happened, what the court decided, and what it means for Florida families.
Understanding Parenting Plans and Timesharing in Florida
Before diving into the Ward v. Waters facts, it is worth spending a moment on the legal framework that governs parenting plans in Florida — because the structure of that framework is central to understanding why this case turned out the way it did.
In Florida, when parents separate or divorce, the court does not use the term “custody” the way many people expect. Florida law eliminated the concept of primary custody and replaced it with a system built around parenting plans and timesharing. A parenting plan is a written document that governs how parents will share the responsibilities and time associated with raising their child. It addresses everything from where the child will sleep each night to how the parents will make decisions about education, healthcare, and extracurricular activities.
Timesharing refers specifically to the schedule of when the child will be with each parent. Florida law strongly favors arrangements that allow both parents to maintain a close, meaningful relationship with their child — but the guiding principle throughout is the best interests of the child. That phrase appears throughout Florida Statute § 61.13, which governs parenting plans, and it is the lodestar around which every custody decision must orbit.
The statute lists twenty factors a court may consider in determining what timesharing arrangement serves the child’s best interests. These include the length and quality of each parent’s relationship with the child, each parent’s ability to communicate and co-parent, the child’s ties to their school and community, the child’s own preferences if they are of sufficient age and maturity, and each parent’s moral fitness and mental health, among others. Courts are not required to make written findings on every single factor, but they must make an ultimate finding that the timesharing arrangement they order is in the child’s best interests. That requirement — seemingly straightforward — is at the heart of what went wrong in Ward v. Waters.
Florida’s Parental Relocation Law: What Happens When a Parent Wants to Move?
The other pillar of this case is Florida’s parental relocation statute, codified at Florida Statute § 61.13001. This law governs what happens when a parent wants to move their principal residence at least fifty miles from where they were living when the most recent timesharing order was entered.
The relocation statute does not automatically favor or disfavor a parent who wants to move. Instead, it sets up a burden-shifting framework. The parent seeking to relocate must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the move is in the best interests of the child. If they succeed in meeting that initial burden, the other parent then has the opportunity to prove — again by a preponderance of the evidence — that the move is not in the child’s best interests.
Factors the court considers in a relocation dispute include: the reasons each parent is giving for supporting or opposing the move, the nature and quality of the child’s relationship with each parent, whether the relocation would improve the child’s life (economically, educationally, or emotionally), and whether a long-distance timesharing arrangement is feasible given the distance, the child’s age, and the cost of travel.
One important nuance: the relocation statute was originally written with “primary residential parents” in mind — meaning the parent who has the child more of the time. Florida courts have debated over the years whether the statute applies equally when parents share time more equally, and the Florida Supreme Court has not fully resolved that question. What is clear, however, is that when a court denies a relocation petition, the statute does not provide an obvious mechanism for the court to simultaneously create a new long-distance parenting arrangement at the location the parent was denied permission to move to. That tension is precisely what blew up in Ward v. Waters.
The Ward v. Waters Story: A Move to Hawaii and a Court Order That Did Not Add Up
Tammy Ward and Joshua Waters were never married, but they were in a long-term relationship and have a daughter together, who was fourteen years old at the time of the appeal. The family’s history is geographically complicated. During the child’s early years, the family lived together in Hawaii. In 2017, the mother moved the child out of Hawaii without objection from the father, and the family eventually settled in Key West, Florida. The parents then agreed to rotate custody annually.
In 2021, the father also relocated to Key West. Shortly after arriving, he filed a petition in circuit court to formally establish paternity, timesharing, parental responsibility, and child support. The mother filed a counterpetition seeking the same things. The parties stipulated to paternity, and the court entered a temporary order giving them alternating weekly timesharing.
Less than two months after that temporary order was entered, the father filed a petition to relocate with the child back to Hawaii. The mother objected. The court scheduled the remaining issues for trial and ordered both parties to submit proposed parenting plans.
The trial proceeded, evidence was heard, and the parties waited for a ruling. But before the judge issued any order, the father unilaterally packed up and moved back to Hawaii on his own — without the court’s permission and without the child.
When the ruling came, it was a split decision with an internal contradiction that set the stage for the appeal. The trial court denied the father’s relocation petition, finding — in extensive and detailed findings — that relocating the child to Hawaii was not in her best interests. Among other things, the court found that the mother had been the child’s primary caregiver, that the child was at a sensitive developmental stage and needed her mother’s close guidance, that travel costs between Key West and Hawaii were prohibitively burdensome, that the time zone difference would prevent the mother from meaningfully communicating with the child, that the father had made false allegations against the mother, that the child was upset with her father’s decision to move, and that the father had failed to pay adequate child support.
The court found in thirteen separate factual conclusions that Hawaii was not a suitable environment for this child — and then simultaneously awarded the father extended timesharing there. That is the contradiction the appeals court could not overlook.
Despite all of those findings against relocation, the trial court simultaneously adopted the father’s proposed long-distance parenting plan, which gave him extended timesharing with the daughter in Hawaii during school recesses, plus additional timesharing in Key West on demand. The mother appealed.
What the Third District Court of Appeal Decided — and Why
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the parenting plan and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The appellate court’s reasoning is worth understanding in some detail, because it reveals important principles that apply well beyond the specific facts of this case.
The Hull v. Hull Argument — and Why It Did Not Quite Apply
The mother’s primary argument on appeal was that the trial court’s ruling directly contradicted a 2019 Fifth District decision called Hull v. Hull. In that case, a father had also petitioned to relocate, unilaterally moved before receiving a ruling, and then sought long-distance timesharing at his new location. The trial court in Hull denied relocation and also denied long-distance timesharing, concluding that the relocation statute did not give it a mechanism to grant such relief when relocation itself had been denied. The Fifth District agreed.
The mother in Ward v. Waters argued that the same logic should apply here: if relocation was denied, there was no statutory basis for awarding long-distance timesharing in Hawaii. The Third District found this argument compelling in spirit but ultimately concluded it did not apply on all fours — and the reason comes down to one key factual distinction.
In Hull, the parties were bound by a permanent parenting plan. In Ward v. Waters, there was only a temporary timesharing arrangement in place. Because a permanent plan had never been entered, the trial court in this case was not limited to the modification framework of the relocation statute. It had broader discretion to fashion a permanent plan from scratch — including, potentially, a long-distance one.
So the relocation statute itself was not the problem. The problem was something more fundamental.
The Missing Finding: Best Interests of the Child
Even without being constrained by the relocation statute, the trial court still had to do one thing before adopting any timesharing arrangement: find that the arrangement was in the best interests of the child. Florida law requires it. There is no exception.
And here is the problem: the trial court never made that finding for the timesharing order. The order adopting the father’s long-distance parenting plan contained no determination that sending the daughter to Hawaii for extended periods served her best interests. The court simply adopted the father’s proposed plan — the same plan that, in a different section of the same ruling, the court had effectively undermined with thirteen detailed findings about why Hawaii was not a suitable environment for this child.
The Third District found this impossible to reconcile. The factual findings supporting the denial of relocation — every single one of them — pointed toward the conclusion that returning the child to Hawaii for any significant period of time was not in her best interests. Yet the timesharing order assumed the opposite without explanation.
The appeals court was careful not to say that long-distance timesharing in Hawaii was necessarily the wrong outcome. What it said is that the trial court cannot reach that outcome without explaining how the timesharing schedule serves the child’s best interests — especially in light of all the findings it had just made pointing the other direction. The case was remanded for the trial court to make that determination explicitly, either by explaining why the Hawaii timesharing actually does serve the child’s best interests or by crafting a different arrangement that does.
Why Ward v. Waters Matters for Florida Parents
You might be wondering why a case involving two unmarried parents, a teenager, and a dispute between Key West and Hawaii has any relevance to your situation in the Tampa Bay area. The answer is that the legal principles at the center of this case are universal to any Florida custody dispute — and they reveal several important truths about how courts are supposed to operate.
Trial Courts Must Connect the Dots
Ward v. Waters is a reminder that Florida appellate courts will reverse rulings that are internally inconsistent — even if the judge’s intentions were understandable. The trial court in this case was likely trying to preserve the father’s relationship with his daughter despite his having moved without permission. That is an empathetic impulse. But good intentions do not substitute for the legal requirement to make findings, apply the proper standards, and produce an order that is coherent on its face.
For parents, this is actually reassuring. It means that family courts are not operating in a vacuum where anything goes. There are rules, standards, and a body of appellate case law holding trial courts accountable when those rules are not followed. A well-prepared Tampa family law attorney will know those rules and know how to enforce them — both in the trial court and, when necessary, on appeal.
Internal Contradictions in Court Orders Can Be Challenged
If you receive a court order in a custody or timesharing matter that seems internally contradictory — one section pointing one direction and another section pointing the opposite way — that inconsistency may be grounds for appeal. Ward v. Waters is a clear example of this principle in action. The appeals court did not simply defer to the trial judge’s discretion; it looked at the order as a whole and concluded that the two rulings could not coexist without further explanation.
This does not mean that every dissatisfying ruling is reversible. Florida appellate courts give trial courts significant deference, and they will not second-guess findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence. But when a ruling is logically inconsistent with the findings that support it, an appeal may be not only appropriate but necessary.
Unilateral Relocation Is Never a Good Strategy
One of the most striking facts of Ward v. Waters is that the father moved back to Hawaii before the court issued any ruling — without permission and without the child. This kind of unilateral move is almost never a good strategy, and this case illustrates why. Not only did the father not get to take his daughter with him, but his move arguably influenced the court’s perception of his judgment, co-parenting ability, and respect for the legal process — all factors that are relevant to a best interests analysis.
If you are considering relocating while a custody matter is pending, please speak with a Florida child custody attorney before taking any action. Moving without court approval when a timesharing order is in place can expose you to serious legal consequences, including contempt of court — and it will almost certainly complicate your position in any pending or future custody proceeding.
Practical Takeaways for Florida Parents in Custody and Timesharing Disputes
Ward v. Waters is a rich source of practical guidance for any parent navigating a custody matter in Florida. Here are the key lessons, organized by situation.
If You Are Establishing a Parenting Plan for the First Time
Whether you were married or not, the process of establishing a permanent parenting plan is one of the most consequential legal proceedings you will go through. The plan you end up with will govern your child’s life — and your relationship with them — for years. Here is how to approach it thoughtfully:
- Document your involvement in your child’s daily life. Courts look closely at which parent has historically been the primary caregiver, who attends school events and medical appointments, who manages homework and bedtime routines. Your documented history matters.
- Understand what the best interests factors actually are. Florida Statute § 61.13 lists twenty considerations. Review them with your attorney and think carefully about how each one applies to your situation — both the ones that favor you and the ones that do not.
- Be realistic about long-distance arrangements. If one parent lives far away, any timesharing plan involving significant travel will need to be both financially feasible and logistically manageable for your child. Courts will consider the cost and disruption of travel, especially for school-aged children.
- Submit a thoughtful proposed parenting plan. As Ward v. Waters illustrates, courts sometimes adopt one parent’s proposed plan. Make sure yours is detailed, child-centered, and clearly tied to your child’s specific needs and schedule.
If You Are Seeking to Relocate with Your Child
Relocation cases are among the most emotionally intense and legally complex matters in Tampa family law. If you are considering a move of more than fifty miles, here is what you need to know:
- You must file a petition before you move — not after. Relocating without court approval when a timesharing order is in place is a serious mistake with serious consequences, as the father in Ward v. Waters discovered.
- You bear the initial burden of proving the move is in your child’s best interests. That means affirmatively presenting evidence about how the new location will improve your child’s life — not just explaining why the move is good for you.
- Expect the other parent to fight back. Once you establish your prima facie case, the burden shifts to the other parent to show the move is not in the child’s best interests. Be prepared for a contested hearing.
- Address the timesharing plan in your petition. Courts want to know how the non-relocating parent’s relationship with the child will be preserved. A detailed, realistic long-distance timesharing proposal strengthens your petition.
- Consider the child’s age and ties to their community. The older the child and the stronger their roots in the current location, the harder relocation becomes to justify. A teenager with established friendships, school involvement, and a meaningful relationship with the other parent faces a different analysis than a toddler.
If You Are Opposing a Relocation Request
If your co-parent has filed — or is threatening to file — a relocation petition, you have real rights and real tools available to you. Do not assume the move is a done deal.
- File a formal objection promptly. Florida’s relocation statute requires you to respond within twenty days of being served with a relocation petition. Missing that deadline can severely limit your options.
- Gather evidence of your relationship with your child. Photos, school records, medical appointment documentation, testimony from teachers and coaches — all of this helps establish the quality and depth of your bond with your child.
- Document the disruption the move would cause. Evidence of the child’s ties to the current community — friendships, school performance, extracurricular involvement — is powerful evidence against relocation.
- Challenge the financial feasibility of the proposed long-distance timesharing. If the relocating parent’s proposed plan relies on expensive, frequent flights, ask how that will realistically work over time — and who will bear the cost.
- Address the relocating parent’s motivations. Courts are attentive to whether a relocation request is genuinely about improving the child’s life or primarily about distancing the child from the other parent.
If You Believe a Court Order Is Internally Inconsistent
Ward v. Waters is a reminder that court orders — even detailed, lengthy ones — can contain contradictions that are legally problematic. If you receive a parenting plan or timesharing order that seems to pull in two different directions, or that makes findings in one section that are undermined by the conclusions in another, do not simply accept it as the final word.
- Review the order carefully with your Florida divorce attorney and identify any specific inconsistencies between the factual findings and the relief granted.
- Understand the standard of review on appeal. Factual findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be reversed if supported by competent, substantial evidence. Legal conclusions and statutory interpretation, however, are reviewed de novo — meaning the appeals court gives them fresh consideration.
- Move quickly. In Florida, appeals in family law matters generally must be filed within thirty days of the order being rendered. Missing that deadline can waive your right to appeal entirely.
- Consider a motion for rehearing first. In some cases, bringing an inconsistency to the trial court’s attention through a motion for rehearing is a faster, less expensive path to correction than an appeal.
A Realistic Look at Long-Distance Co-Parenting in Florida
One of the underlying tensions in Ward v. Waters — and in any case involving a parent who lives far away — is the genuinely difficult question of how to maintain meaningful parent-child relationships across distance. Florida courts want both parents involved in a child’s life. They also want stability, routine, and predictability for children. When those goals are in tension, the result is often exactly the kind of complicated, contested proceeding illustrated by this case.
Long-distance parenting arrangements can work — but they require genuine commitment from both parents, financial resources to support travel, and the flexibility to adapt as the child grows and circumstances change. What they cannot be is an afterthought. When a court crafts a long-distance parenting plan, it has to think carefully about how the arrangement will actually function in practice for a real child — not just on paper.
Some of the questions courts and parents should be asking in long-distance situations include:
- Who pays for travel, and how will costs be split as the child gets older?
- How will school schedules and extracurricular commitments be accommodated across time zones?
- What is the plan for technology-based communication — video calls, messaging — between visits?
- What happens if the child is ill, has an important event, or simply does not want to travel on a given scheduled visit?
- How will medical and educational decisions be made when the parents are thousands of miles apart?
These are not abstract questions. They are the practical realities of co-parenting across distance, and courts that take the time to address them produce orders that are more durable, more enforceable, and — most importantly — better for children. Ward v. Waters is, in part, a case about what happens when those questions go unasked and unanswered.
Why The McKinney Law Group Is the Right Partner for Your Parenting Plan Dispute
Custody and timesharing disputes are among the most consequential legal matters a person can face. The decisions made in these proceedings — about where your child lives, how much time they spend with each parent, and how major life decisions get made — will shape your family’s future for years. You deserve representation from attorneys who take that responsibility seriously.
At The McKinney Law Group, we have deep experience in Tampa family law, including parenting plan disputes, relocation cases, timesharing modifications, and appeals of trial court rulings in custody matters. We follow cases like Ward v. Waters not because they are interesting legal puzzles — though they are — but because they reveal how the courts actually think about the issues our clients face every day.
We understand that if you are reading this, you are probably dealing with something difficult. Maybe your co-parent has announced plans to move out of state and you are terrified of losing meaningful time with your child. Maybe you need to move for a new job or to be closer to family, and you are not sure how to navigate the legal process. Maybe you just received a court order that does not make sense and you need someone to explain your options.
Whatever your situation, we are here to help — not just with legal strategy, but with the kind of honest, compassionate guidance that helps you make sound decisions during a stressful time. We will take the time to understand your family’s specific circumstances, explain the law in plain English, and fight hard to protect your relationship with your child.
We represent clients throughout the Tampa Bay area, including Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Manatee counties, in matters including:
- Parenting plan establishment and modification
- Relocation petition proceedings — both pursuing and opposing relocation
- Long-distance timesharing disputes
- Child support establishment and modification
- Paternity proceedings
- Post-judgment enforcement and contempt actions
- Appeals of family court orders
We know that behind every legal case is a family. And we know that what matters most is not winning an argument — it is getting an outcome that actually works for your child and preserves your ability to be the parent you want to be.
Ready to Talk? Contact a Tampa Divorce Lawyer at The McKinney Law Group
Whether you are facing a relocation dispute, trying to establish a fair parenting plan, challenging an order that does not reflect your child’s best interests, or simply trying to understand where you stand, the experienced team at The McKinney Law Group is ready to help. We offer confidential consultations, and we will give you the honest, straightforward assessment you need to move forward with confidence.
Cases like Ward v. Waters remind us that the details matter — that a court order missing one critical finding can mean years of additional litigation and uncertainty for a family that deserved better. Our job is to make sure you go into every proceeding prepared, protected, and represented by someone who knows the law and knows how to use it on your behalf.
At The McKinney Law Group, we believe every Florida family deserves a parenting arrangement that truly reflects their child’s best interests — not just on paper, but in practice. Let us help you get there.
Do not navigate Florida’s family court system alone. Contact The McKinney Law Group today to schedule your confidential consultation with a Tampa divorce lawyer who will listen, advise, and fight for your family. We are proud to serve clients throughout Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and the greater Tampa Bay region. Your child’s future is worth protecting — and we are ready to help you do exactly that.
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.