Background
In a 2022 paternity judgment, the parties agreed that the mother would have sole parental responsibility and sole timesharing. The father initially sought no contact with the child. He then began a demanding medical residency in New Jersey, while the child remained with the mother in Florida.
In 2024, the father sought to modify the parenting plan. By the August 2025 hearing, he had completed his residency, moved to Fort Lauderdale, and begun working as a physician with a regular weekday schedule. The trial court denied any modification, finding no substantial and material change in circumstances and concluding that equal timesharing was not in the child’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held that the father established a substantial and material change in circumstances: he resided in New Jersey when the 2022 judgment set timesharing, but later moved within 50 miles of the mother and became available to parent after completing residency.
The court upheld the denial of equal timesharing and shared parental responsibility. The four-year-old child had never met the father, had a stable life with the mother, and the record did not show that 50/50 timesharing or shared responsibility served the child’s best interests. But the court held that denying the father all contact was an abuse of discretion because no evidence showed that contact would harm the child. On remand, the trial court must establish a schedule giving the mother majority timesharing while allowing the father some contact, potentially progressing from telephone and supervised visits to unsupervised visits.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s move from long-distance residency to within 50 miles of the other parent may be a substantial and material change under section 61.13(3).
- Equal timesharing may be rejected where it would disrupt a child’s stable environment and the parent has no existing relationship with the child.
- A court generally may not deny all parent-child contact absent evidence that contact is necessary to withhold to protect the child’s welfare.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between rejecting an immediate equal-timesharing arrangement and refusing all contact. A parent’s prior absence and failure to develop a relationship with a child can weigh heavily against equal timesharing, but cannot alone create a permanent barrier to building that relationship.
On modifying a timesharing schedule, the trial court must evaluate the statutory best-interest factors and make specific written findings.