Florida stopped building its custody rules around the word “custody” years ago. What a Florida judge actually decides is parental responsibility and time-sharing, written into a parenting plan.
That matters more than a style change. Filing a Florida case asking for “primary custody” asks for something Chapter 61 does not define or award.
Updated: 2026-07-30
Quick answer: Florida law replaces custody with two separate concepts — parental responsibility, meaning who makes decisions for the child, and time-sharing, meaning the schedule — both written into a required document called a parenting plan under Fla. Stat. § 61.13. Since July 1, 2023, Florida applies a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child’s best interest, and a parent opposing it must prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. Unless the parents agree on a schedule the court approves, the judge must weigh all 20 statutory best-interest factors and make specific written findings of fact.
Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Chapter 61 is amended regularly and how it applies depends on facts specific to your family. For decisions about your own case, consult a family-law attorney licensed in Florida.
Table of Contents
- What does Florida call custody now?
- Is equal time-sharing the default in Florida?
- Parental responsibility vs. time-sharing: what is the difference?
- What must a Florida parenting plan contain?
- What does a Florida judge actually weigh?
- How do you file for time-sharing in Florida?
- What happens if a parent wants to move?
- How do you modify a Florida time-sharing schedule?
- Where do unmarried parents stand in Florida?
- Frequently Asked Questions
What does Florida call custody now?
Three defined terms replace it, all in Fla. Stat. § 61.046.
A parenting plan is the document that governs the relationship between the parents on decisions about the child, and it must contain a time-sharing schedule. A time-sharing schedule is the timetable specifying the time, including overnights and holidays, that the child spends with each parent. Sole parental responsibility is a court-ordered arrangement in which one parent makes the decisions.
Every Florida case involving a minor child produces a parenting plan. It is not optional and it is not a private side agreement — either the parents submit one the court approves, or the judge writes one.
The practical translation for a parent used to the old vocabulary: what you would have called legal custody is parental responsibility, and what you would have called physical custody or visitation is time-sharing. If your goal is to be the parent whose home is the child’s primary residence, the thing you are asking for is a majority time-sharing schedule, not a status.
Do not over-read the vocabulary change, though — a lot of writing does. Both “custody” and “visitation” still appear inside Chapter 61, including inside § 61.13 itself: subsection (1)(a) refers to “a third party who has custody,” subsection (2)(b)5 refers to “a supervised visitation program,” and subsection (9)(c) restricts when a court “may not order visitation.” Part II of Chapter 61 is Florida’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and uses “custody” throughout. The words are alive in the statute book. What changed is the framework a judge applies to decide your case.
Is equal time-sharing the default in Florida?
Yes, since July 1, 2023 — and Florida is one of only ten states with a genuine rebuttable presumption of joint custody, as our 50-state comparison of custody laws lays out.
The operative language sits in § 61.13(2)(c)1: “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.”
Three things about that sentence are easy to miss.
The burden is low. Preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not. This is not clear and convincing evidence, and it is not a heavy lift for a parent with real facts — a work schedule that makes alternating weeks unworkable, a long commute between homes, a documented safety concern.
The court has to show its work — and not only when it departs from 50/50. This is the detail most commentary gets backwards. The trigger for written findings is not deviation from equal time; it is the absence of an approved agreement. The subsection requires that, except where the parents agree on a schedule the court approves, the court “must evaluate all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) and make specific written findings of fact when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule.” That duty applies to any contested schedule the court sets, including one that orders equal time-sharing. So the preservable appellate issue is “the court entered a contested schedule without written findings,” which is broader and easier to raise than “the court departed from equal time-sharing.”
Agreement overrides the presumption. If both parents submit a schedule and the court approves it, the presumption does no work and the written-findings requirement does not apply. Most Florida parenting plans are agreed.
There is also a repeal almost nobody writes about. The pre-2023 version of § 61.13(2)(c)1 contained an express gender-neutrality sentence: “there is no presumption for or against the father or mother of the child or for or against any specific time-sharing schedule.” That sentence is gone — the 2023 amendment replaced the whole clause with the equal time-sharing presumption. Pages that still reassure Florida parents by quoting “Florida law says there is no presumption for or against the mother or father” are quoting repealed text. The protection has not disappeared in substance, but it now comes from constitutional and case law rather than from that sentence in the statute.
Safety cuts the other way, and 2023 strengthened that side too. A separate act that year — Greyson’s Law — added § 61.13(2)(c)2, which makes a detriment inquiry mandatory. In determining detriment to the child, the court shall consider evidence of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28, and whether either parent “has or has had reasonable cause to believe” that they or their children are or have been “in imminent danger of becoming victims” of domestic or sexual violence by the other parent — expressly regardless of whether a cause of action has been brought or is currently pending. The same standard applies to abuse, abandonment, or neglect. That last clause is the point of the law: a parent does not need a filed case, an injunction, or a conviction for the court to be required to weigh a credible fear.
Two further counter-presumptions apply. Under § 61.13(2)(c)3, a conviction for a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher involving domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that shared parental responsibility is detrimental to the child. Separately, § 61.13(2)(c)5 provides in mandatory terms that the court “shall order sole parental responsibility for a minor child to one parent, with or without time-sharing with the other parent if it is in the best interests of the minor child” — a stronger hook than the permissive language elsewhere for a parent building a sole-responsibility request.
And § 61.13(2)(c)6 creates a rebuttable presumption against granting time-sharing at all where a parent has been convicted of, or had adjudication withheld for, certain sexual offenses under the conditions the statute sets out. That one has a two-part rebuttal test, and both parts matter: the parent may rebut it only on a specific written finding by the court that the parent “poses no significant risk of harm to the child” and that time-sharing is in the child’s best interests. If the presumption is rebutted, the court must then consider all of the subsection (3) factors in building the schedule.
Parental responsibility vs. time-sharing: what is the difference?
These are independent decisions, and a parent can hold a strong position on one and a weak one on the other.
| Shared parental responsibility | Sole parental responsibility | Equal time-sharing | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it governs | Decisions — education, health care, religion, and other major matters | Decisions, held by one parent | The calendar only |
| Florida default | Yes, unless shown detrimental to the child | Ordered where shared responsibility is detrimental, or where it is otherwise in the child’s best interest | Presumed since July 1, 2023, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence |
| Can the court split it? | Yes — § 61.13(2)(c)4 lets the court give one parent ultimate responsibility over specific areas, such as education or health care, while the rest stays shared | Not applicable | The schedule can be any division the court finds is in the child’s best interest |
| Effect on child support | None directly | None directly | None — § 61.13(5) states expressly that an equal time-sharing order does not preclude a child support order |
That third row is the most useful and least-known provision in the section. Florida courts routinely order shared parental responsibility but hand one parent ultimate decision-making authority over a single contested area — most often education or medical care — which resolves the deadlock without stripping the other parent of everything. If your conflict is really about one recurring decision, that is the remedy to ask for by name.
What must a Florida parenting plan contain?
At minimum, the plan has to describe how the parents will share daily tasks of child-rearing, the time-sharing schedule with overnights and holidays, who is responsible for health care and school-related matters, and the methods and technologies the parents will use to communicate with the child.
Section 61.13(2)(b)5 adds a provision worth knowing if safety is an issue: the plan must designate authorized locations for exchanging the child, and the court may require exchanges at a neutral safe exchange location or at a supervised visitation program if it finds a risk or imminent threat of harm to a parent or the child during exchanges, and that the requirement is necessary and in the child’s best interest.
Two more provisions belong in every Florida parent’s working knowledge.
Records cannot be withheld from either parent. Section 61.13(2)(c)7 provides that access to records and information about the child — “including, but not limited to, medical, dental, and school records” — may not be denied to either parent unless a court order specifically revokes that right, including any restriction imposed in a domestic violence injunction. The parent also has the same rights as the other parent as to the form, substance, and manner of access. A school or pediatrician’s office that refuses one parent’s request because “the other parent has custody” is wrong under Florida law.
Under shared responsibility, either parent can start a child’s therapy. Section 61.13(2)(b)3.a. provides that where the court orders shared parental responsibility over health care decisions, either parent may consent to mental health treatment for the child unless the parenting plan says otherwise. That is a real default-authority rule and it surprises people in both directions — one parent discovers the other started counseling without asking, or a parent who assumed they needed agreement learns they did not. If you want that decision to be joint, the parenting plan has to say so.
Florida also puts teeth behind the schedule, in both directions.
Section 61.13(4)(a) provides that a parent who is owed child support or alimony and is not being paid “may not refuse to honor the time-sharing schedule presently in effect.” Subsection (4)(b) runs the other way: a parent whose time-sharing has been violated must keep paying ordered support or alimony. Neither obligation can be used as a bargaining chip against the other. Withholding the child over unpaid support, or withholding support over a denied weekend, is unlawful in Florida regardless of how justified it feels.
Then § 61.13(4)(c): when a parent refuses to honor the time-sharing schedule without proper cause, the court shall calculate the time improperly denied and award the other parent enough makeup time to compensate — scheduled at the non-complying parent’s expense and at the deprived parent’s convenience. It may also modify the parenting plan on the non-offending parent’s request. That is a stronger enforcement remedy than most states put in statute, and it is the provision to cite when a schedule is being ignored. Our guide to documenting co-parenting communication for court covers how to build the record you would need.
One narrow but distinctive rule: § 61.13(9)(a) provides that a time-sharing plan may not require a child to visit a parent who lives in a recovery residence between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless the court makes a specific finding that the overnight is in the child’s best interest.
What does a Florida judge actually weigh?
Section 61.13(3) lists 20 best-interest factors, lettered (a) through (t), with (t) as a catch-all for anything else relevant. Florida’s list is one of the longest in the country — compare California, which enumerates four.
The ones that decide most contested Florida cases:
- (a) each parent’s demonstrated capacity to encourage a close and continuing relationship with the other parent, to honor the schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are needed
- (d) how long the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of keeping it
- (e) the geographic viability of the plan, with special attention to the travel involved
- (i) the reasonable preference of the child, if the court finds the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express one
- (l) each parent’s demonstrated capacity to communicate with and keep the other parent informed
- (m) evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, abandonment, or neglect — and where the court accepts such evidence, it must specifically acknowledge in writing that it considered it
- (n) whether either parent has knowingly given the court false information about any of these issues
Factor (i) is where the “what age can my child choose” question lands, and Florida’s answer is that there is no age. The statute ties weight to the child’s maturity, not a birthday. No Florida statute lets a child of any age decide.
Factor (a) is worth reading twice. The parent who cancels weekends, blocks phone calls, or refuses reasonable swaps is being scored against on the first factor in the list. Our guide to high-conflict co-parenting strategies covers how to hold a firm position without generating that record against yourself.
How do you file for time-sharing in Florida?
Florida family cases go to the circuit court in the county where the child lives, subject to the six-month home-state rule under the UCCJEA.
- Pick the right petition. Married parents file a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage with dependent children. Unmarried parents file a Petition to Determine Paternity and for Related Relief, which is where time-sharing and parental responsibility get decided.
- Use the approved forms. The Florida Supreme Court publishes Approved Family Law Forms covering petitions, financial affidavits, and parenting plans, including a form parenting plan you can adapt.
- Pay the clerk’s filing fee or file for indigency. Fees are set under Fla. Stat. § 28.241 and collected by the circuit clerk — roughly $400 for a dissolution with children, less for a paternity action, plus service costs. An Application for Determination of Civil Indigent Status waives them if you qualify.
- File electronically. Florida requires e-filing through the statewide Florida Courts E-Filing Portal in nearly all cases.
- Serve the other parent through the sheriff or a certified process server.
- Complete the parenting course. Under Fla. Stat. § 61.21, both parents must complete a court-approved Parent Education and Family Stabilization Course of at least four hours. The petitioner has 45 days from filing; every other party has 45 days from service, or from an acknowledgment of paternity. Missing it can hold up your final judgment.
- Attend mediation — unless domestic violence makes it unsafe. Most Florida circuits refer contested family cases to mediation before a final hearing. There is a carve-out that matters: Fla. Stat. § 44.102(2)(c) provides that upon a party’s motion or request, a court shall not refer any case to mediation if it finds there has been a history of domestic violence that would compromise the mediation process. You have to raise it; the court will not assume it.
- Finalize by agreed parenting plan or after trial.
What happens if a parent wants to move?
Florida is unusually precise here, and the numbers are statutory rather than judge-made.
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, a relocation is a change in a parent’s principal residence of at least 50 miles from the residence at the time of the last order, for at least 60 consecutive days — not counting temporary absences for vacation, education, or the child’s health care. Below either threshold, the relocation statute does not apply.
There are exactly two lawful routes.
| By agreement | By petition | |
|---|---|---|
| What you file | A signed written agreement from both parents and everyone else entitled to time-sharing, reflecting consent, with a revised schedule and transportation arrangements | A Petition to Relocate, signed under oath under penalty of perjury, served on the other parent |
| What it must contain | Consent, the new time-sharing schedule, and transportation terms | The specific new address if known, the reasons for the move, and a proposed revised post-relocation schedule and transportation plan — omitting the schedule and transportation makes the petition legally insufficient |
| If the other parent objects | Not applicable | An answer objecting must be verified and state the specific factual basis, including how involved the objecting parent has been in the child’s life |
| If the other parent does not respond in time | Not applicable | Relocation is presumed to be in the child’s best interest and the court shall, absent good cause, grant it — potentially without an evidentiary hearing |
| If a timely objection is filed | Not applicable | The parent may not relocate and must obtain court permission at a temporary hearing or trial |
Moving without doing either one is expensive. Section 61.13001(3)(e) makes non-compliant relocation grounds for contempt, for an order returning the child, for a factor against you in any later time-sharing decision, and for an award of the other parent’s attorney’s fees and travel costs.
If it goes to a contested hearing, the relocation test is its own analysis — not the 20 custody factors. Section 61.13001(7) supplies eleven relocation-specific factors and opens by stating that “a presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child does not arise.” The equal time-sharing presumption does not carry over here. Subsection (8) then sets a burden-shifting structure: the parent who wants to relocate must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the move is in the child’s best interest, and only if that burden is met does it shift to the objecting parent to show by a preponderance that the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interest. Knowing which side carries the burden first, and that it can shift, is most of what determines how a relocation hearing is prepared.
One more 2023 addition runs the other direction: § 61.13(3) now provides that if the parents lived more than 50 miles apart when the last time-sharing order was entered and one parent then moves within 50 miles of the other, that move may itself be treated as a substantial and material change in circumstances supporting a modification. Moving closer can reopen the schedule.
How do you modify a Florida time-sharing schedule?
The 2023 amendment did two separate things here, and most coverage reports only one of them.
What stayed. Section 61.13(2)(c) still provides that the court decides parenting and time-sharing according to the child’s best interests and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, “except that modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial and material change of circumstances.” Section 61.13(3) repeats that neither parental responsibility, nor a parenting plan, nor a time-sharing schedule may be modified without that showing plus a determination that the change is in the child’s best interest.
What changed. The pre-2023 standard had a third element: the change had to be substantial, material, and unanticipated. HB 1301 struck “unanticipated” from both places it appeared. That is a genuine liberalization — a change the parents could have foreseen when the order was entered no longer fails on that ground alone. If you were told years ago that a foreseeable change could never support modification in Florida, that is no longer the rule.
So the bar moved, but it did not disappear. A substantial and material change is still required, and the 2023 equal time-sharing presumption is not itself such a change. If you already have a Florida order that is not 50/50, the new presumption alone does not reopen it — you still need a change in circumstances, just no longer an unforeseeable one.
The court also has to make written findings when it modifies a schedule, the same as when it creates one. Our step-by-step guide to how custody modification works covers the filing sequence, and Florida child support is recalculated separately when the overnight split changes.
Where do unmarried parents stand in Florida?
This is the sharpest edge in Florida family law, and it surprises people.
Under Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1), while married parents are jointly the natural guardians of their children, “the mother of a child born out of wedlock is the natural guardian of the child and is entitled to primary residential care and custody of the child unless the court enters an order stating otherwise.”
So until a court order exists, an unmarried Florida mother holds primary residential care as a matter of statute — even where paternity is undisputed and the father is on the birth certificate. An unmarried father’s route is a paternity action under Fla. Stat. § 742.011 in circuit court, which establishes paternity and then decides parental responsibility, time-sharing, and support in the same case.
The practical order of operations for an unmarried father in Florida is: file the paternity petition, get a parenting plan entered, and only then is there a schedule anyone can enforce. Signing the birth certificate does not create one. Our guide to fathers’ custody rights covers the broader picture.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Florida automatically give 50/50 custody now?
Not automatically, but it starts there. Since July 1, 2023, Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)1 presumes equal time-sharing is in the child’s best interest, and a parent who wants something else must prove that by a preponderance of the evidence. Unless the parents agree on a schedule the court approves, the judge must weigh all 20 best-interest factors and make specific written findings before ordering an unequal split.
What is the difference between parental responsibility and time-sharing in Florida?
Parental responsibility is decision-making authority — education, health care, and other major matters. Time-sharing is the calendar. They are decided separately, so a parent can share full decision-making while having a minority of the overnights, or the reverse. Both are written into the parenting plan.
At what age can a child choose which parent to live with in Florida?
There is no age. Factor (i) in § 61.13(3) directs the court to consider the child’s reasonable preference only if it finds the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express one. The preference is evidence a judge may weigh, never a decision the child makes.
How far can I move with my child in Florida?
Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, less than 50 miles, or for less than 60 consecutive days, does not trigger the relocation statute. At or beyond both thresholds you need either a signed written agreement from the other parent or a granted Petition to Relocate before you move. Relocating without one exposes you to contempt, an order returning the child, and the other parent’s attorney’s fees.
Can I change an existing Florida time-sharing order because of the 2023 equal time-sharing law?
Not on that basis alone. Modification still requires a substantial and material change of circumstances plus a finding that the change is in the child’s best interest. The 2023 presumption governs how a court sets a schedule in the first place, not whether an existing order can be revisited.
Does an unmarried father have custody rights in Florida before going to court?
Not enforceable ones. Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) makes the mother of a child born out of wedlock the natural guardian, entitled to primary residential care, until a court orders otherwise. Establishing paternity through a § 742.011 action and obtaining a parenting plan is what creates an enforceable time-sharing schedule.
Note: This article is general information, not legal or therapeutic advice. Chapter 61 has been amended substantially since 2023 and continues to change. For decisions about your own case, consult a family-law attorney licensed in Florida.
