blog

Verbal Times Sharing Agreement Among Parents,

                                    In Florida: Not Worth the Paper it’s Written on

            When it comes to resolving time sharing (a.k.a. “custody”) issues between parents who are divorcing, separating or otherwise living apart, I’m all about pushing the Staples proverbial “easy button.”  In other words, the more the parents can resolve without attorneys, and certainly without court intervention, the better.  Notwithstanding same, I’ve also always been an advocate of putting agreements in writing.   As famous movie producer Samuel Goldwyn said, “a verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”

 

       Apparently the First District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida is of the same opinion.  Late last year the Court issued an opinion that, although supported by law, flies in the face of layman logic (this shouldn’t surprises me after practicing law for nearly 28 years).  The Department of Revenue (the agency that handles child support in Florida) appealed a trial court’s order that allowed a deviation from child support guidelines, reducing the father’s obligation, because he spent 40 percent of the time with the child.  DOR v. Daly, 74 So3d 165(Fla. 1^st DCA 2011).

 

    Essentially, under Florida law, child support is calculated based on the parties’ net incomes and the number of children. A table is then used to determine the payer’s child support.  This chart is found in §61.30, Fla. Stat. 

                       

            Once a parent spends 20 percent of the overnights with the child, then the Court is mandated to deviate from the child support guidelines set forth in the statute, usually resulting in a reduction of the paying parent’s child support. § 61.30(11)(b), Fla. Stat.  Twenty percent (20%)  of the time is the magic number (for the mathematically challenged, that’s 73 nights per year) because that is deemed “substantial time-sharing.”

§61.30(11)(b)(8), Fla. Stat.

 

       So why did the Appellate Court reverse the reduction the judge granted  Mr. Daly in his child support obligation?  Both parties readily acknowledged in court that he spent 40% of the overnights with the child.  Alas, the First District said “no.” Simply...the parties failed to put their agreement in writing.  The essential document that the parties lacked was a Parenting Plan.  Even though § 61.30(11)(b), requires a deviation from guidelines, the remainder of that statutory section also requires that time sharing be set forth in a parenting plan.

 

     The opinion goes on to say that “ pursuant to section 61.30(11)(b), a trier of fact shall deviate from the guidelines “[w]henever a particular parenting plan provides that each child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent.”

            The parties agreed to the 60/40 split.  Wasn’t that their parenting plan? Not under Florida law, where a parenting plan requires “a document created to govern the relationship between the parents...and must contain a time-sharing schedule for the parents and child.” § 61.046(14), Fla. Stat. (2010). 

 

            No worries, you say.  We’ve written down our agreement for time sharing with the kids. So, you think you’re covered?  According to Daly, you’re wrong again.  The Daly case specifically cited §61.046(14)(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. (2010) whereby  a parenting plan must be (1) “[d]eveloped and agreed to by the parents and approved by a court;” or (2) “[e]stablished by the court, ... if the parents cannot agree.

 

           The Daly opinion relied on “the plain language of the statute” that “ prohibits a trial court from deviating from the guidelines based on a verbal visitation agreement even where equity compels the deviation.”  In another appeal by the Department of Revenue, based again on a verbal agreement, the 1^st District Court of Appeal, just this month, reinforced its prior decision in  DOR v. Veach, Case No. 1D11-4923 (April 4, 2012).

 

      That means, even if you create your own time sharing agreement, and even if you reduce it to writing, it still requires the court’s approval if you wish to rely on that plan to adjust your child support obligation.

       The interpretation of the Florida child support statutes established by Daly further reinforces why it makes sense to consult with a divorce/family law attorney early on in any situation where the parties contemplate divorce, agree to modify an existing child support order or are involved in a paternity case.

 

        At the Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A. we keep up-to-date on all the relevant law so that your case doesn’t suffer the unintended consequences of Mr. Daly’s case.  From our offices in Broward County, we help families throughout Florida, including Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, with not only child support and timesharing/parenting plans, but with alimony, modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, parental relocations, property division and domestic violence.   We encourage parents to agree on time sharing.  Come see us to make sure your agreement is enforceable.

Cindy S. Vova

The Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

Pine Island Commons
8551 West Sunrise Boulevard #301
Plantation, Florida 33322-4007

Phone: 954-316-3496
Email: info@vovalaw.com
Website: www.vovalaw.com

 

 

 

British Divorce Downright "uncivil"

            BRITISH DIVORCE…GUILTY TO A FAULT!

            “I want a divorce, and let me tell you why!” As a Florida family law and divorce attorney for nearly 28 years,  I often hear these words, or some variation on this theme, when a prospective client calls.   Although the Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A. knows that listening to a client and caring about his or her family situation is an important part of the divorce and healing process, it is not important to the court.  In Florida, and that includes Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and every other county, parties need not cite to the court a “reason” for wanting a divorce other than that they have “irreconcilable differences.”  These “irreconcilable differences can be as innocuous as a husband (or wife, I suppose) leaving the toilet seat up, to waking up one morning with the epiphany that one does not wish to spend the rest of his life with the person lying next to him (presumably his wife).

 

            In fact, according to an April 8, 2012 New York Times article, New York was the last bastion of “fault” divorce, and even New York abolished this requirement in 2010. Thus, every state in this country has some form of no-fault divorce.

 

            So, the obvious question springing from this is, “Doesn’t ‘no fault’ divorce make it too easy to get a divorce?”  Well, let’s consider the alternative...a divorce requiring “grounds.”  The United Kingdom still requires a party requesting a divorce to set forth and actually establish, to the satisfaction of the Court, that grounds exist.  According to the Times, under British law, five categories exist under which where the court may grant a divorce.  These include:

            • Adultery (pretty obvious)

            • Abandonment (relatively obvious), and

            • “Unreasonable Behavior”

 

Now, having probably represented parties in around 800 divorce cases, and having served as a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator in another 200 cases, I can tell you that nearly EVERY CASE contains some of what I, personally, would call “unreasonable behavior.”   That is, in part, because divorce is such an emotionally charged situation where even the most rational of individuals sometimes crack under the emotional and financial pressures that occur in divorces.

 

            In the UK, however, alleging “grounds” for a divorce adds yet another layer of emotional, and, dare I say financial strain, that, according to the New York Times article, raises the level of absurdity in pleadings to be reminiscent of, in my humble opinion, a 1970s Monty Python skit.   For example, per the article, spouses have alleged that:

 

• A wife was mandated by her husband to dress and speak as a Klingon (wonder if Star Trek originally ran on BBC 1 or BBC 2)

 

• The serial abuse of repeated tuna casserole dinners (based on the cuisine I’ve had in England that, arguably, may have been an upgrade)

 

            • “Spiteful tampering with the TV antenna” (could cable have saved that marriage?)

 

                        • A husband who “usurped” the wife’s control of the washing machine (that might have been grounds to SAVE the marriage)

 

• A wife who “without justification , flirted with any builder or tradesman” (I would guess her “justification” was that her husband couldn’t fix a “bloody” thing)

 

• A husband who insisted that Timmy, his pet tarantula, sleep next to the bed in a glass case (hey, at least he didn’t insist it sleep on the pillow sans cage), and

 

• A husband who insisted on controlling the television remote (okay, so if this passed muster in a British court, I guess every wife in America would have grounds for divorce, particularly during football season)

 

I can only wonder what “fault” was plead in Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana’s petition for divorce....

 

                 So why am I urging the British to abolish this arcane requirement to grant a divorce?  Although the legal system in the United States is modeled after the common law system we adopted from our friends across the pond (except of course Louisiana, that follows the French civil system, and caused me not to apply to Tulane Law School out of fear I’d have to learn more useless stuff..thank you Emory for having me!), it is time for the British to take a lesson from us.  No fault divorce does make divorce easier...when a marriage should end...It eliminates the need for people to write hurtful, silly and damaging allegations in their divorce petitions, let alone spend the time, effort expense and embarrassment of attempting to prove these allegations before a court. 

           

            Since Florida requires neither spouse to plead or prove this unreasonableness, nor, for the most part, does adultery play a role in the Courtroom, attorneys representing divorcing parties can concentrate on those matters that require “reasonableness,” specifically issues involving time sharing and a workable parenting plan with the children, equitable distribution of marital assets and debts, whether alimony is appropriate and, if so, whether the alimony should be bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, durational, lump sum or permanent periodic, and child support.

 

            If there appears to be no chance to “save” a marriage, then at our firm we concentrate on amicably resolving these issues as expeditiously as possible, and not spending our clients’ money investigating affairs, and providing evidence to the court of Timmy Tarantula’s sleeping arrangements!

 

            Call us.  We are happy to listen to about your spouse’s unreasonable behavior.  We are sympathetic to what you may have endured.  However, we will help you move forward to the future, perhaps boldly going where you’ve not been before....but not aboard the Starship Enterprise.

 

Cindy S. Vova

Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

8551 West Broward Boulevard

Suite 301

Plantation, FL 33322

(954)316-3496

info@vovalaw.com  

Alimony Reform Fails in Florida Legislature

With the Florida legislative session ended earlier this month the verdict was in . . . NO changes to Florida’s alimony laws in this round.

Of course, there’s always next year, and with the tenacity of certain lobbying groups this year, there is no question that alimony reform will continue as a hot button again, and change is lurking.  In fact, the first round of recent statutory alimony changes took effect January 1, 2011, when a new “type” of alimony called “durational” alimony was added to Section 61.08, the Florida alimony statute.  At the same time bridge-the-gap alimony, recognized by some courts as far back as 1979, was also included and defined in the statute as alimony awarded to help  transition the lower  earning spouse, usually in a shorter term marriage, from married life to single life.

                When a court deems durational alimony is appropriate, it cannot last for longer than the term of the marriage.  So, if one is married for eight years, the LONGEST (under durational alimony) a court can award a spouse alimony is for those eight years.

                Last year the new law also defined three specific types of marriages, based on the number of years the spouses lived in marital bliss..Well, perhaps all was not blissful, but nonetheless... Section 61.08, Florida Statue defines a “short-term” marriage as one lasting up to seven years; an “intermediate term marriage” as one lasting from  seven to 17 years, and a “long term marriage” as one lasting more than 17 years.  Prior to these changes, judges had little consistent guidance on how to address the type and duration of  alimony in marriages of 12 to 17 years, and relied on cases bearing very little consistency. 

                Nonetheless, as soon as the legislature enacted law where a “long term marriage created a presumption in favor of a permanent alimony award, six months later, in July 2011, the statute was revised, removing the “presumption” of permanent alimony for these 17 plus year marriages.  In other words, a judge is not “required” to award permanent alimony in long-term marriages.  So if you find yourself divorcing after 17 plus years of marriage, you need a skilled Florida divorce/family law attorney to persuade the Court of your position, whether for or against permanent alimony.

                        So what further changes were lurking this past legislative session that are certain to rise up again?  A group called Florida Alimony Reform has spent considerable time and resources attempting to, most notably, effectively end permanent alimony in Florida.  Indeed, after considerable lobbying on all sides, the bill (House Bill 549) advanced by Florida Alimony Reform passed the House 83-30, but, ultimately the Senate failed to take action on the companion bill.

     Now the fine gentlemen (do they have any “women” members..? I have many women clients who are exposed to paying permanent alimony due to their superior earnings over their long-term spouses) would have the public believe that lawyers (I assume he means ALL lawyers) opposed the legislative change because, in at least the opinion of co-director Alan Frisher, it would mean less business for lawyers.  This is simply not true. As one of my favorite law professors at Emory University said to my first year class many years ago, “the facts do affect the outcome of the case.” 

                A March 4, 2012 New York Times article, presumably in an attempt to attack Florida’s current alimony laws, quoted Tampa eye surgeon, Bernard Perez, presently suffering from cancer, who said that he “had been ordered to pay his former wife 85 percent of his income . . . ”  The use of the past tense in Dr. Perez’s quote from the Times is very relevant.  According to the appellate opinion, while Dr. Perez’s divorce was pending, a judge in Hillsborough County ordered the doctor to pay, what appears from the appellate decision, actually 88 percent of the doctor’s income on a TEMPORARY basis . . . that is to say, while the divorce was pending.  Clearly the trial judge erred, and when Dr. Perez appealed the decision (while the case was still pending, and before a final decision on alimony) Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals, acknowledged this error and overturned the judge’s temporary decision. Therein lies the beauty of our legal system.  When a party feels (and has legal grounds) that a judge (or jury) erred in a decision, he can appeal that decision before a higher court.

                Now, knowing that the legal system is an imperfect machine, but albeit, the best one

available, the wiser parties  (or the wiser attorneys of parties)  try to compromise and resolve these issues.  However, when such a total overreaching decision occurs, then that is what the appellate system is designed to address.

                I can assure you that no legislation proposed by Florida Alimony Reform or any other lobbying entity, will so significantly overhaul alimony as it stands today, that it  will escape appeals.  So, is there a perfect solution? Easy answer...no....However, a well thought out, debated and investigated change to the future alimony statues beats one pushed through by some disgruntled men who hate the system and feel wronged by it.

                    By the way, permanent alimony is a misnomer, or, if you will, an oxymoron. Permanent alimony awarded by a court is always subject to change...marriage by the spouse receiving permanent alimony terminates it.....a spouse engaged in a “substantial supportive relationship” may have the alimony received reduced or terminated...retirement at an appropriate time constitutes a change whereby alimony may be terminated or reduced, and a former spouse, such as Dr. Perez, who suffers an “involuntary” reduction in income (i.e.: illness)would not have to pay his wife 85 percent of his reduced income... unless, of course, HE agreed on a period of alimony that was nonmodifiable for any reason whatsoever.  That, of course, would have been his free choice to negotiate....not a decision thrust upon him under the current alimony statute.

                Still confused?  If you have alimony questions call the Law Firm of Cindy S. Vova, P.A. Whether you are in Miami-Dade, Ft. Lauderdale, Weston, Davie, Cooper City, Sunrise, Parkland, Coral Springs, Miramar, Margate, Boca Raton or Palm Beach, our experienced attorneys are here to assist you with questions on the who, what, where, when and why’s of alimony.  If you’re worried about paying alimony or you’re  worried about not receiving it, if you want to modify the alimony you pay or receive, if you’re owed alimony and you’re not getting it our experienced attorneys can give you straight answers.  Call our office, centrally located in Plantation, for the low down on what’s up with alimony in Florida.

 

Cindy S.  Vova

The Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 301

Plantation, FL 33322

954-316-3496

cindyvova@vovalaw.com

Judge Rules Properly on Sandusky Grandchildren Issue

 

      For several weeks major news stories and significant hoopla focused on the serious allegations of child molestation, encompassing 40 criminal counts of sexual abuse of children against Penn State University’s former assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky. 

 

            It seems that Jerry Sandusky’s son, Matthew, is in the throes of custody proceeding involving, among other matters, the time sharing with Matthew’s and his former wife Jill’s three children, ages 9, 7 and 5. On November 7, 2011, just two days after the charges were filed against Jerry Sandusky, the former Jill Sandusky (now know as Jill Jones) filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, asking that the court “enter a temporary order stating that until further order of court, the children shall not be in the home of Jerry Sandusky or in his presence.”

 

            Apparently the parties had an Interim Parenting Plan, dating back to August 3, 2011. According to Jill’s allegations, when the children are with their father, Matthew Sandusky, they are “regularly in the care of their grandparents,” Jerry and Dorothy Sandusky.

 

            Although I don’t know whether Matthew Sandusky’s attorney filed  a response to this motion, one thing is clear, the presiding judge, Thomas King Kistle, made a proper decision in ruling on the motion.

 

            Judge Kistle, in a temporary order entered on the same day the motion was filed, held that the Sandusky children were not to be in the presence of Jerry Sandusky “without supervision,” and further temporarily prohibited overnight visitation at Jerry Sandusky’s home.  Although Jill Sandusky sought to prohibit Jerry Sandusky from any contact whatsoever with his grandchildren,  Judge Kistle amended the proposed order so that safeguards were in place for the protection of the children, while limiting the further trauma that the family and the children are certainly suffering under the scrutiny of the country and the world. 

 

            Being neither in the position of judge nor jury in determining Jerry Sandusky’s guilt or innocence,  I’ll leave that to the state of Pennsylvania’s justice system.  But besides (perhaps rightfully) turning the reputation of esteemed Penn State football Coach Joe Paterno upside down, there is more at stake...the Sandusky grandchildren.

 

              Although these children are relatively young, undoubtedly wagging tongues, finger pointing and muffled whispers have infiltrated their childhood  in the vicinity of their Penn State University dominated town.  By Judge Kistle’s benevolent and wise temporary ruling, at least these children have some stability whereby their grandfather is not abruptly removed from their lives, yet the children are protected from this alleged predator.  If Jerry Sandusky did even one of the things he’s been accused of he should rot in some far away jail forever...if that is punishment enough.  Someday, these children will know the truth.  But for now, Judge Kistle ensured that these children will be safe, but put a band-aid on a family that surely needs it.

 

            Oh, and also, glad to see that Judge Kistle’s order also addressed the issues of Matthew Sandusky using his mother as a conduit for communication between his ex-wife and himself.  Good for you Judge Kistle...and Matthew, grow up.  These are your children and Jill’s. Whatever

brought about the demise of the marriage (and believe me, as a family law and divorce attorney I’ve heard it all), act like an adult and father.  You need to parent these children TOGETHER.  Takes what’s good about both of you (and, apparently you used to see something good to have three children together) and use it to raise three healthy and happy children.

 

            Our firm has handled similar cases.  We are attorneys, but we are also parents and people who care about children and families...especially those fractured by divorce.  If you have issues involving time sharing with your children in Florida, and particularly Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, we would be glad to speak with you about them.

 

Cindy S. Vova

Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

8551 West Sunrise Boulevard

Suite 301

Plantation, FL 33322

(954) 316-3496

cindyvova@vovalaw.com

Did you ever wonder how you can access the information that is filed with the court in a family law case?  If your case is filed in Florida, and that, of course includes Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, as well as the rest of the state, the answer is....virtually EVERYTHING!    Not only is this information accessible from the actual courthouse if someone asks to see your file, but a person can access all of this information from the comfort of a home computer via the internet.

   

Until about a year ago, one could not access much of the "private" information in family law cases, for example, marital settlement agreements, financial affidavits, time sharing (custody) judgments, and final judgments, via the internet.  New legislatives changes at the beginning of 2011 removed much of the restrictions and makes much of these private matters part of the public domain...unless the safeguards that were also enacted are followed, including the filing of a Notice of Confidential Information Sheet along with pleadings.   

 

            Recently,  the Honorable Rene Goldenberg, Family law judge in the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward county, Florida, spoke to the Broward County Matrimonial Attorneys at their monthly luncheon regarding the new legislation governing confidentiality and the attorney's duty to clients.  Judge Goldenberg said that none of the cases she recently reviewed in her division, were accompanied by the Notice of Confidential Information  Sheet, mandated since January, instructing the clerk to remove the confidential information, including, but not limited to social security numbers, from family case pleadings.  I can confidently tell you, as my associate, Penny Taylor- Miller informed the judge, that she apparently did not review any of the files from the Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A., as our firm instituted this procedure back in January, and now, commensurate with the new legislation effective October 1, 2011, also ensures that further confidential information remains that way for our clients.

 

             If you are involved in a divorce, or other family law case, ask your attorney if he filed the Notice of Confidential Information with your case.  If your spouse or former spouse filed petitions or motions containing information that is untrue or that you do not wish your children (or anyone else for that matter) to read in the future, ask your attorney if she plans to file a Motion Exempting Family Court Record from Public Access.  If your attorney says "yes," ask to see it.  If your attorney is clueless as to what you are talking about, call our office.  The Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A.   Clients are our most important asset.  We stay up-to-date on the law so we can do everything in your best interest.

 

Cindy S. Vova

The Law Office of Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

8551 West Sunrise Boulevard

Suite 301

Plantation, FL 33322

954-316-3496

info@vovalaw.com

 

Florida Changes Child Support Law Reducing Child Support For Paying Parents

In Florida child support is awarded based upon the proportion of the parties’ incomes and a set guideline amount.  Previously,   guideline support was reduced only when a paying parent spent at least forty (40%) percent of the annual overnights with the child(ren).  Late last year that changed.  Now a parent paying child support receives a reduction in the amount of child support awarded when the child(ren) stay overnight with the parent at least twenty percent (20%) of the time.  As you can image, this drastic change affects significantly more of the child support awards, effectively reducing the amount of child support awarded in many cases.  Further, previous child support awards can be modified downward to take advantage of the new law when the paying parent receives the significant (at least 20%) amount of overnights with the minor child(ren).  

In order to be eligible for the reduction, the paying parent must have the minor child(ren) overnight for only seventy-three (73) days each year.  To equate this into time-sharing terms, a parent who shares time with the child(ren) every other weekend, for just two overnights each time; who has two weeks in the summer; and who has at least one-half of the Winter Break and a few other overnight holidays during the year, can meet or even exceed the seventy-three day mark to receive a reduction in the child support award.  This type of time-sharing schedule, for a parent who wishes to spend time with the minor child(ren) [and lives within a reasonable distance from the other parent] is not difficult to attain. 

The amount of the reduction, of course, increases with the amount of overnight visits the paying parent receives.  Thus, a paying parent who has ninety-three (93) overnights will see a higher reduction than one who receives seventy-three (73) days. 

There is, however, a glitch in how this reduction is calculated which results in not everyone receiving a reduction in the child support award.  There are times when there is such a disparity in income between the parents (where the paying parent’s income far exceeds the other parent’s income) that the reduction calculation yields no credit whatsoever.  Instead, the reduction calculation lists a higher amount of child support due and owing.  Presumably, this result was anticipated by the legislature.  In fact, Cindy Vova, who sits on the Support Issues Committee of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, advises the committee is currently working on this matter and plans to make suggestions to the legislature to correct this glitch. 

In the State of Florida, our law firm is dedicated to assisting people with their family law needs. We practice throughout the state, but focus on Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties.   Please contact us for a free consultation if you have any questions regarding modifying your child support to receive a reduction for significant time-sharing or for any other family law issue you have.

(THIS BLOG WAS WRITTEN FOR INFORMATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.  FURTHER, VARIOUS FACTORS OFTEN AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF A FAMILY LAW CASE.  THEREFORE, YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH A FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY INSTEAD OF RELYING SOLELY ON THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG.)

Penny Taylor-Miller, Esq.  

Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

8551 W. Sunrise Blvd.

Ste. 301

Plantation, FL 33322

(954)316-3496

www.vovalaw.com

MOVING WITH YOUR MINOR CHILD AFTER YOUR DIVORCE

In the state of Florida, if you no longer live with the other parent of your child, there are statutory limitations on moving with your minor child.  These limitations begin if (a) you move 50 miles or more from the residence at the time of the divorce (or  other time-sharing court order), and (b) the move extends 60 days or beyond.  If this occurs, the statute requires you to either obtain written consent of the other parent or obtain a court order permitting you to relocate prior to moving.

Any written consent from the other parent must:  (a) specify that the consent is given; (b) specify the time-sharing schedule for the parent giving permission; and (c) specify the transportation arrangements for the time-sharing agreed upon.  Once the agreement is fully executed by the parties, it must be ratified by the Court.  It is important to realize that a verbal agreement is insufficient.  If you move 50 miles or more based upon a verbal agreement, the other parent can change his/her mind and, through the courts, force the minor child’s return to the State of Florida.

If the other parent refuses to provide written consent, then the parent who wishes to relocate must file a Petition for Relocation and seek the Court’s permission in order to move.  Once the Petition is filed, it must be served upon the other parent, who will then have 20 days to formally object to the Petition.  If the other party fails to do so, the relocation is generally approved by the Court (unless the Court finds the relocation is not in the child’s best interest-which rarely occurs).

If an objection is filed, you can request a temporary hearing which will permit you to relocate temporarily within 30 days from the date of an appropriately filed request.  Further, the Court is required to hold a final hearing within 90 days from the date of an appropriately filed request.  If you fail to obtain court approval prior to relocating, the Court will enter an order, upon request,  requiring the minor child to return to the jurisdiction the child previously resided. 

In order to relocate over the objection of one parent, you must prove that the move is in the best interest of the minor child.  This burden is not always easy to prove.  The Court looks at, among other things, (a) the relationships between the child and the parents, siblings, etc. and what effect the move will have on this relationship, along with the ability to preserve the relationships; (b) the age and needs of the child; (c) the child’s preference; (d) the quality of life the move will provide to the parent and child; (e) the reasons for relocation and for opposing relocation; (f) financial situation of each parent and whether relocation is necessary to improve same; (g) if the other parent has any financial obligation outstanding to the relocating parent; (h) career opportunities that result from relocation; and (i) whether there is any substance abuse or domestic violence history between the parties. 

Whether you live in Hollywood, Hallandale, Dania Beach, Pompano Beach, Tamarac, Fort Lauderdale, Coral Springs, Sunrise, Miramar, Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, Davie, or Deerfield Beach, our firm has the knowledge and experience necessary to assist you in pursuing your relocation request.  We can assist you in drafting an agreement to be ratified by the Court or with a relocation petition, whichever may be necessary.  Please contact our firm for a free consultation. 

Penny Taylor Miller, Esq.

Cindy S. Vova, P.A.

8551 W. Sunrise Blvd.

Ste. 301

Plantation, FL

(954) 316-3496