From the beginning of my career in 1999, the legislature has changed the face of what timesharing looks like. When I first started, there were terms used like “primary parent” and “secondary parent.” The secondary parent received every other weekend, starting on Friday after school until Sunday night and 6:00-8:00 pm each Wednesday. They would get a chunk of Summer and rotate holidays. In 2009, the legislature removed the terminology altogether and called Mom and Dad, just parents. It also required a customized parenting plan for each family. No longer using the “one size fits all.” The first time I went to court with one of these, then Hon. Michael Jones said, “I’ve never seen a parenting plan that was 13 pages long.” What’s so funny now, is 13 pages is actually short. There was also a presumption that equal timesharing was detrimental to a child. From there it later morphed into no presumption. And now, effective July 1, 2023, the statute was revised to provide as follows:
“It is the public policy of this state that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing. Unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the minor child.” Fla. Stat. § 61.13(a)(c)1 This statute now puts both parents on even footing. What I’m not sure about is the stay at home mother. Is it in the child’s best interest to not spend the majority of their time with that mother after the divorce even though during the marriage that was how it was. Time will only tell what impact it will have on parents in our state. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0061/Sections/0061.13.html
Since the statute was modified, we haven’t seen much appellate interpretations of how this statute should apply. Appeals generally take about a year and a half in Florida. We don’t know if this presumption is really able to be overcome. The judges I’ve seen so far since the amendment have adopted equal timesharing except one. It’s is on appeal now. The standard “preponderance of the evidence” really just means who do you believe more. It is the same standard that is used in civil cases. If the judge believes 51% toward unequal timesharing, then so be it. Imagine the scales of justice. If it tips ever so slightly more in one direction, then that is who wins.
Before July 1, 2023, when a parent who moved back to where the children lived it was not considered a substantial change which was needed to change timesharing. It was based on caselaw, not a specific statute. There is a new statute that now reflects that if a parent lived more than fifty (50) miles from the other parent and child at the time of the last order on timesharing and then moves within fifty (50) miles of the parent and child, it may be considered a substantial change in circumstances.
Hopefully the new changes will help families and facilitate a loving relationship between both parents and children.