Florida stopped using the word "custody" years ago: parents share parental responsibility (decision-making) and divide time-sharing (where the children actually are) under a court-approved parenting plan. Since July 2023, that framework starts from a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the children's best interests — one of the most consequential changes in modern Florida family law, and one that rewards the parent who arrives with evidence and a workable plan rather than adjectives.
The 2023 presumption — what it actually does
Section 61.13, Florida Statutes now presumes that a 50/50 schedule serves the child's best interests. A parent who wants a different schedule carries the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence under the statutory best-interests factors, that equal time-sharing does not fit this child. What genuinely rebuts it: safety issues (violence, substance abuse, neglect), geographic distance that makes school-week alternation impossible, a parent's real unavailability, a child's particular needs, or a caregiving history in which one parent has simply never done the work. What does not rebut it: tradition, the other parent's gender, or generalized worry. There is no age at which a child "chooses" — a mature child's reasonable preference is one factor among twenty, not a veto.
Parental responsibility is a separate question
Whatever the schedule, Florida strongly favors shared parental responsibility — both parents participating in major decisions about education, healthcare, and religion. Courts order sole decision-making only when sharing would be detrimental to the child, and can allocate "ultimate decision-making" over specific spheres (say, education) to one parent when joint decisions have proven unworkable. A domestic-violence conviction changes these defaults sharply.
The parenting plan: where cases are really won
Every case with minor children ends in a written parenting plan, and the difference between a plan that works and one that breeds litigation is specificity:
- The schedule itself — week-on/week-off, 2-2-3, or 2-2-5-5 for equal time; structured alternatives where 50/50 is rebutted — chosen around school, work realities, and the children's ages.
- Holidays, breaks, and travel — an explicit rotation that overrides the regular schedule, plus passports, out-of-state travel notice, and make-up time mechanics.
- Exchanges and communication — where, when, who drives, and how parents communicate (increasingly through court-recognized apps that keep a record).
- Right of first refusal — when a parent needs childcare for more than a set period, the other parent gets the first call. For physicians and professionals with call schedules, clauses like this make an equal plan actually function — see our physician divorce page.
- School designation — which address controls enrollment; quietly one of the most fought-over lines in any plan.
Divorcing and paternity parents also complete a short court-approved parenting course (§ 61.21) before judgment — inexpensive and mandatory.
Parents who were never married have the same time-sharing and support rights once paternity is established — Florida does not treat them differently, and it has not recognised common law marriage since 1968.
The schedules judges actually approve
“Equal time-sharing” is not one schedule, and choosing the wrong shape is how workable plans turn into weekly arguments. The common patterns:
- Week-on / week-off. One exchange a week. Simplest to administer and usually best for older children; hard on younger ones who go seven days without seeing a parent.
- 2-2-3. Two days with A, two with B, then a three-day weekend that alternates. Frequent contact, good for younger children, but five exchanges a week and it only works if the parents live close and communicate.
- 2-2-5-5. Two fixed weekdays each, then alternating five-day blocks. Each parent keeps the same weekdays every week, which makes activities and childcare predictable. Often the best compromise for school-age children.
- Alternating weekends with a midweek. The default where equal time is rebutted — distance, work patterns, or a caregiving history that does not support 50/50.
- Long-distance plans. School year with one parent, extended summer and most school breaks with the other, plus structured video contact and an allocation of travel costs.
The right answer depends on the children’s ages, the distance between homes, and whether both parents can actually execute the exchanges. A plan that looks fair on paper and fails in practice generates more litigation than an unequal plan both parents can keep.
Supervised time-sharing and safety restrictions
Where safety is genuinely at issue, the court has options well short of terminating contact: supervised exchanges at a neutral location, supervised time-sharing through an approved provider, a step-up plan that expands contact as conditions are met, sobriety monitoring, or a no-overnight restriction that lifts on a defined showing.
Two warnings, in both directions. Allegations that cannot be substantiated damage the parent who made them — the statute expressly weighs each parent’s willingness to support the other’s relationship with the child. And a parent facing restrictions should engage with the conditions rather than litigate them indefinitely; courts reward completed programmes and clean records far more than argument. Where substance use is the issue, see substance abuse in divorce and custody.
The best-interests factors, briefly
Section 61.13(3) lists twenty factors: each parent's demonstrated capacity to honor the schedule and co-parent, the division of parental responsibilities before the case, moral fitness and mental and physical health, the home/school/community record, each parent's willingness to keep the child out of the litigation, domestic violence history, substance abuse, and the child's own developmental needs among them. In practice, judges reward the parent with the documented caregiving record and punish the parent caught disparaging the other to the children or obstructing contact. Keep the texts. Keep the calendar. They decide these cases.
Relocation: the 50-mile rule
A parent who wants to move a child's principal residence more than 50 miles for 60 days or more needs either the other parent's written agreement or a court order under § 61.13001 — a separate petition with its own factors and strict procedure. Moving first and litigating later is the classic self-inflicted wound: courts can (and do) order the child returned. If a move is on your horizon — new job, new marriage, family support — build it into the case rather than springing it on the court afterward.
Paternity cases: same framework, one extra step
For unmarried parents, time-sharing and parental responsibility are decided under the same § 61.13 standards — after paternity is established under Chapter 742. Since a 2023 statutory change, an unmarried biological father who meets the statute's requirements stands on equal footing once parentage is established: the presumption of equal time-sharing applies to him too. The practical advice for unmarried fathers is unchanged for decades: establish paternity formally, early; rights you haven't established can't be enforced.
Modification and enforcement after judgment
Parenting plans can be modified on a substantial and material change in circumstances when modification serves the child’s best interests. The 2023 legislation removed the older requirement that the change also be unanticipated, which lowered the bar meaningfully — though stability still carries real weight with judges. If a petition has been filed against you, see defending against a modification. Enforcement is its own toolbox: make-up time-sharing, contempt, fee awards, and in serious cases modification itself when one parent systematically obstructs the schedule. Denied time-sharing is not self-remedying: withholding child support in response is illegal (the obligations are independent), but documented obstruction is powerful modification evidence. See modification & enforcement.
Time-sharing FAQs
It's presumed, not automatic. Courts start from equal time-sharing, and the parent seeking a different schedule must prove by a preponderance of the evidence — under the § 61.13 best-interests factors — that 50/50 doesn't serve this child. Safety issues, distance, genuine unavailability, and caregiving history are what actually move the needle; preference and tradition are not enough.
There is no such age in Florida. A child's reasonable preference is one statutory factor, weighted by the child's maturity and the reasons behind the preference — and judges are alert to preferences that have been coached or purchased. Children almost never testify in open court; when their voice matters, it usually arrives through a guardian ad litem or similar mechanism.
Usually yes, with a plan built for your reality: schedules keyed to your actual rotation, right-of-first-refusal coverage, and honest make-up mechanics. Judges respect parents who design around their obligations and are skeptical of those who promise a schedule they plainly cannot keep. We build plans around call calendars, shift work, and travel-heavy jobs regularly.
Not more than 50 miles (for 60+ days) without the other parent's written agreement or a court order under Florida's relocation statute. It is a separate petition with strict requirements, and moving first is the fastest way to lose it. If relocation is realistic in your future, tell your lawyer at the start — the parenting plan can be drafted with it in mind.
Document every denial, keep communicating in writing, and file for enforcement: Florida courts can order make-up time, hold the obstructing parent in contempt, shift attorney's fees, and — for systematic obstruction — modify the plan itself. Do not retaliate by withholding child support; the obligations are legally independent and self-help damages your own case.
Rarely. The guideline formula runs on both parents' incomes as well as overnights, so a higher-earning parent typically still pays support at 50/50 — just less than at unequal schedules. And the income side is litigable: hidden or strategically reduced earnings get corrected through imputation before the formula runs. See our child support and imputation pages.
In a 2-2-5-5 each parent keeps the same two weekdays every week, then the weekends alternate in five-day blocks. Its advantage is predictability — activities, childcare and work rotas stay fixed — while no child goes a full week without seeing a parent. Week-on/week-off has fewer exchanges and suits older children better. Neither is legally preferred; the court approves the plan that fits these children, these homes and this distance.
It is rare, and courts reach for graduated restrictions first: supervised exchanges, supervised time-sharing, no overnights, sobriety monitoring, or a step-up plan that expands as conditions are met. Contact is usually restricted rather than eliminated, and restrictions are meant to be temporary and earned back. Unsubstantiated allegations tend to rebound on the parent who made them, because the statute weighs each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other.
An agreed parenting plan can be entered in a few months. A contested case runs longer because of mandatory disclosure, mediation, and the court’s calendar, and longer again if a social investigation or guardian ad litem is appointed. Temporary orders are available early and matter enormously — the arrangement running while the case is pending often becomes the status quo the final judgment is measured against.
Once paternity is established, yes — the same section 61.13 framework and the same 2023 equal-time presumption apply. The gap is procedural, not substantive: rights that have not been established cannot be enforced, and a father who waits is arguing against a status quo he allowed to form. Establish paternity formally and early. See our paternity Q&A.
Related services at Mack Law
Child Support
Guideline calculations, hidden-income disputes, administrative vs. court cases, and enforcement.
Divorce
Contested, uncontested, complex, and high-net-worth dissolution — handled with financial fluency.
Modification & Enforcement
Changing orders when life changes — and contempt actions when the other side won't comply.
Physician & Professional Divorce
Parenting plans around call schedules — and the practice, income, and privacy issues that come with them.
Your children come first. Build the plan that proves it.
Call (407) 749-1034 or request a confidential consultation*. Prompt responses, usually the same business day.
*Consultations are billed at a flat fee. We research your matter thoroughly before the call and stay on the phone as long as you need — and if you don’t feel the consultation delivered value, we’ll refund the fee.
This page describes Florida law in general terms as of its last update and is not legal advice about any specific situation. Statutes cited include §§ 61.13, 61.13001, 61.21, and ch. 742, Florida Statutes, including the 2023 amendments. Outcomes always depend on specific facts.