Emergency disputes involving children and sudden interstate moves often force courts to act quickly, sometimes before a full evidentiary record can develop. Florida law draws an important distinction between relocations that occur after a court order or pending action and those that happen beforehand. A recent ruling from a Florida court illustrates how that distinction affects a trial court’s authority and emphasizes that a child’s best interests must remain the guiding principle even in urgent circumstances. If you are dealing with an emergency relocation or return order, you should consult with a Miami family law attorney to understand how timing, procedure, and statutory limits can shape the outcome of your case.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the husband and wife were married and had three minor children together. During the marriage, the family encountered financial difficulties. In response to those challenges, the husband relocated with the children from Florida to Tennessee, where his parents co-owned a residence. After the move, the husband enrolled the children in school and claimed to have pursued new employment opportunities.
It is alleged that after the husband moved with the children, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Miami-Dade County. Along with seeking dissolution, the wife requested emergency relief in the form of an order requiring the immediate return of the children to Florida. She asserted that the husband had unilaterally relocated the children without her consent.
Reportedly, a general magistrate reviewed the emergency request and recommended that the children be returned to Florida. The trial court ratified that recommendation and entered an emergency return order directing the husband to expeditiously return the children from Tennessee.
It is reported that the husband sought appellate review of the non-final order and moved for a stay, arguing that the trial court improperly relied on Florida’s child relocation statute and failed to conduct a best interests analysis before ordering the children’s return. He contended that enforcement of the order would cause harm while the appeal was pending.
Emergency Relocation Requests
On appeal, the court analyzed the stay request by examining both the likelihood of success on the merits and the potential harm if a stay were denied. Although courts generally defer to trial courts in temporary timesharing matters, that discretion must still operate within the bounds of established law, with the child’s best interests serving as the controlling consideration.
The court focused on the scope of Florida’s child relocation statute. By its plain language, the statute applies only when a parent changes the principal residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time sharing, or at the time a pending action is filed. Florida appellate courts have consistently interpreted this language to mean that the statute does not govern relocations that occur before the filing of a dissolution or paternity action and before any time sharing order exists.
Applying that interpretation, the court determined that the husband’s move occurred before the wife filed the dissolution action. As a result, the relocation statute did not apply, and the trial court could not rely on its provisions to justify an emergency return order. The court explained that this statutory limitation does not leave trial courts powerless. Courts retain authority under other provisions of Florida law to establish parenting plans and to address situations in which a child may have been removed to evade judicial oversight.
However, when the relocation statute does not apply, the court must still conduct a best interests analysis before ordering the return of children. The court acknowledged the time pressures faced by the trial court, particularly given congested dockets and the urgent nature of the request. Even so, the absence of a best interests determination rendered the emergency return order procedurally deficient.
To preserve the status quo during review and prevent potential harm, the court granted the stay of the return order. At the same time, recognizing the importance of prompt resolution in cases involving children, the court relinquished jurisdiction for a limited period. This allowed the trial court to convene a hearing, evaluate the relevant factors, and issue an order grounded in a proper best interests analysis.
Talk to a Knowledgeable Miami Child Custody Attorney
Emergency relocation disputes can escalate quickly and carry lasting consequences for parents and children alike. If you are seeking the return of children, opposing an emergency order, or navigating timesharing issues at the outset of a dissolution case, it is wise to speak with an attorney about your options. The knowledgeable Miami child custody attorneys at the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A. assist clients throughout South Florida with complex custody, relocation, and emergency family law matters, and if you hire us, we work diligently to protect your rights. To discuss your situation with us, call 800-596-0579 or contact the firm online.
Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
