Florida Child Custody Agreement
Florida calls the document a parenting plan and the schedule time-sharing, and one of each results in any case involving time-sharing, whether or not the parents agree.
Find out where you stand in Florida
Where are you with the custody arrangement?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
Florida does not decide custody and visitation between parents. Chapter 61 was retitled Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Time-sharing by chapter 2008-61, section 1, Laws of Florida, and what the court now approves is a parenting plan containing a time-sharing schedule, with decision-making handled as shared or sole parental responsibility. Agreeing does not take the court out of the picture, because Florida Statutes section 61.046(14)(a) offers exactly two routes and no third: the plan is either developed and agreed to by the parents and approved by a court, or established by the court if the parents cannot agree or agreed to a plan that the court did not approve. What agreeing changes is the machinery. Under section 61.13(2)(c)1., except where the parties agree to a time-sharing schedule that the court approves, the court must evaluate all twenty best interest factors in section 61.13(3) and make specific written findings of fact. That same subparagraph carries Florida's rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child's best interests, and it applies unless otherwise provided in the section or agreed to by the parties, so the parents' own agreement is what displaces it.
Key Things to Know
- 1
A parenting plan results either way. Florida Statutes section 61.046(14)(a) gives two branches and no third: the plan is developed and agreed to by the parents and approved by a court, or it is established by the court where the parents cannot agree or where the court did not approve the plan they agreed to. Agreeing changes which branch the case takes, not whether a plan exists.
- 2
What the agreement buys is procedure. Section 61.13(2)(c)1. requires the court to evaluate all twenty factors in section 61.13(3) and make specific written findings of fact except where the parties agree to a time-sharing schedule that the court approves. An agreed and approved schedule removes that findings exercise, but it does not lower the best interests standard and it does not remove the need for approval.
- 3
Florida uses different words for everything here. The document is a parenting plan, the schedule is a time-sharing schedule under section 61.046(23), and decision-making authority is parental responsibility, shared or sole. Custody and visitation survive in chapter 61 only in cross-references to interstate and international rules and to supervised visitation programs. A form written in custody and visitation language is not using Florida's vocabulary.
- 4
Since 2023 the court starts from equal time-sharing. Section 61.13(2)(c)1. creates a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child, and a party rebutting it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child's best interests. The presumption applies unless otherwise provided in that section or agreed to by the parties, so parents who want a different split state it in their agreed schedule.
- 5
Section 61.13(2)(b) prescribes what the plan must contain, at a minimum. It must describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child, include the time-sharing schedule arrangements, designate who is responsible for health care, for school-related matters including the address used for school-boundary determination and registration, and for other activities, describe in adequate detail the methods and technologies the parents will use to communicate with the child, and, unless otherwise agreed by both parents in writing, designate authorized locations for exchanging the child. Section 61.046(14)(b) adds that the plan must address all jurisdictional issues, including the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, and the Hague Convention.
- 6
Florida's factor list is one of the longest in the country, and it is a floor rather than a ceiling. Section 61.13(3) runs from (a) through (t), twenty lettered items with no gaps, but it is prefaced including, but not limited to, and factor (t) is itself any other factor relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan. Nineteen substantive factors plus one open catch-all, in a list the statute says is not exhaustive.
- 7
Domestic violence sits in several layers of chapter 61 at once, and it is separately best interest factor (m). Shared parental responsibility is the default, but the court must deny it where it would be detrimental to the child, and section 61.13(2)(c)2. lists what the court considers on detriment, including evidence of domestic violence. Section 61.13(2)(c)3. then creates a rebuttable presumption that shared parental responsibility is detrimental where a parent has been convicted of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher involving domestic violence, among other triggers, and the statute adds that whether or not there is a conviction or an injunction the court shall consider evidence of domestic violence or child abuse as evidence of detriment. If there has been abuse or an injunction, this is a situation to raise with a lawyer rather than settle on a form.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Child Custody Agreement in Florida, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Child Custody Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Child Custody Agreement guideCustomize your Child Custody Agreement Template with DocDraft
Florida Requirements for Child Custody Agreement
The parenting plan must be either developed and agreed to by the parents and approved by a court, or established by the court where the parents cannot agree or agreed to a plan that was not approved. There is no route without a plan, so the document should be framed as a plan submitted for approval.
A time-sharing schedule is a timetable that must be included in the parenting plan, specifying the time, including overnights and holidays, that the minor child will spend with each parent. If the parents cannot agree, or their agreed schedule is not approved, the court establishes the schedule.
At a minimum the plan must describe how the parents share the daily tasks of upbringing, include the time-sharing schedule arrangements, designate responsibility for health care, for school-related matters including the school-boundary and registration address, and for other activities, describe the methods and technologies used to communicate with the child, and designate authorized exchange locations unless both parents otherwise agree in writing.
The plan must address all jurisdictional issues, including the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, and the Hague Convention. This is a required clause rather than an optional interstate travel paragraph.
There is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child's best interests, rebutted by proof on a preponderance of the evidence. The presumption applies unless otherwise provided in the section or agreed to by the parties, so an agreed schedule should state the split the parents intend.
Except where the parties agree to a time-sharing schedule that the court approves, the court must evaluate all twenty factors in section 61.13(3) and make specific written findings of fact. An agreed and approved schedule removes the findings exercise but not the best interests standard.
Twenty lettered factors govern the determination of all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing. The list is prefaced including, but not limited to, and factor (t) reaches any other relevant factor, so it is a minimum set rather than a closed one.
Shared parental responsibility is the default unless it would be detrimental to the child. Subparagraph 2. lists the evidence considered on detriment, including domestic violence, and subparagraph 3. creates a rebuttable presumption of detriment on certain convictions. The court considers evidence of domestic violence or child abuse whether or not there is a conviction or an injunction.
Relocation means a change in the location of a parent's principal residence of at least 50 miles, sustained for at least 60 consecutive days, excluding temporary absences for vacation, education, or the child's health care. It proceeds by signed written agreement, which may be ratified without a hearing unless a party requests one within 10 days of filing, or by sworn petition with seven prescribed contents and a 20-day objection window.
Where the parents lived more than 50 miles apart at the time of the last order and one parent moves within 50 miles of the other, that move may be a substantial and material change in circumstances supporting modification. This is a separate provision from the relocation trigger and should not be treated as the same 50-mile rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
Two things change, and neither of them is the need for a court. Under Florida Statutes section 61.13(2)(c)1., the court must evaluate all twenty best interest factors in section 61.13(3) and make specific written findings of fact except where the parties agree to a time-sharing schedule that the court approves, so an agreed and approved schedule removes that findings exercise. The same subparagraph's rebuttable presumption of equal time-sharing applies unless otherwise provided in the section or agreed to by the parties, so the parents' agreement displaces the equal-time default. What agreeing does not do is lower the best interests standard.
A parenting plan results in every case involving time-sharing with a minor child, because the statute leaves no route without one. Florida Statutes section 61.046(14)(a) provides that the plan must be either developed and agreed to by the parents and approved by a court, or established by the court where the parents cannot agree or agreed to a plan that was not approved. Section 61.046(14) also requires the plan to contain a time-sharing schedule for the parents and child, and section 61.13(2)(c) directs the court to determine all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing in accordance with the best interests of the child.
Yes. Approval is what gives the plan legal force, and the statute assumes the court may withhold it. Section 61.046(14)(a)2. contemplates a plan the parents agreed to that is not approved by the court, and section 61.046(23)(b) says the time-sharing schedule is established by the court if the parents cannot agree or if their agreed-upon schedule is not approved. On approval the plan is incorporated into the judgment or order, and that is the document each parent can enforce.
Not between parents. Chapter 61 was retitled Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Time-sharing by chapter 2008-61, section 1, Laws of Florida. The schedule is a time-sharing schedule, defined at section 61.046(23) as a timetable that must be included in the parenting plan specifying the time, including overnights and holidays, that a minor child will spend with each parent. Decision-making authority is parental responsibility, shared or sole. Custody survives in chapter 61 mainly in interstate and international cross-references and in references to supervised visitation programs.
Section 61.13(2)(b) sets a minimum. The plan must describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child, include the time-sharing schedule arrangements specifying the time the child will spend with each parent, designate who is responsible for any and all forms of health care, for school-related matters including the address used for school-boundary determination and registration, and for other activities, describe in adequate detail the methods and technologies the parents will use to communicate with the child, and, unless otherwise agreed by both parents in writing, designate authorized locations for the exchange of the child. Section 61.046(14)(b) requires the plan to address all jurisdictional issues. Child support is a separate calculation and is not resolved by the parenting plan.
It is presumed, not required. Section 61.13(2)(c)1. provides that unless otherwise provided in that 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, and that to rebut the presumption a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child's best interests. Because the presumption yields to what the parties agree, parents who want an unequal schedule set it out in the plan they submit for approval.
Section 61.13(3) runs from (a) through (t), twenty lettered items with no gaps in the sequence, and it is one of the largest enumerated best interest lists in the country. Factor (m) is the domestic violence factor, and factor (t) is any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan, including the time-sharing schedule. Because the list is prefaced including, but not limited to, and ends in a catch-all, it is best read as nineteen substantive factors plus one open item, in a list the statute says is not exhaustive. Where the parents agree on a schedule the court approves, the court is not required to make written findings on each of them.
Section 61.13001 governs. Relocation there means a change in the location of a parent's principal residence of at least 50 miles from that residence, sustained for at least 60 consecutive days, not counting a temporary absence for vacation, education, or the provision of health care for the child. There are two routes. The parents and every other person entitled to access or time-sharing can sign a written agreement that reflects consent, defines an access or time-sharing schedule, and describes transportation arrangements, which the court may ratify without an evidentiary hearing unless a party asks for one in writing within 10 days after the agreement is filed. Otherwise the relocating parent files a sworn petition with seven prescribed items, including the intended address, the date of the move, the specific reasons, and a proposed revised schedule, and the other parent has 20 days after service to file a written objection.
It can, under a different provision that is easy to confuse with the relocation rule. Section 61.13(3) provides that where the parents lived more than 50 miles apart at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing and one parent then moves within 50 miles of the other, that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances supporting a modification. That is a ground for revisiting an existing order, not a permission requirement. The 50-mile figure in section 61.13001(1)(e) is the separate trigger for the relocation process, and the two rules do different jobs.
Chapter 61 addresses it in layers. Shared parental responsibility is the starting point, but the court must deny it where shared responsibility would be detrimental to the child, and section 61.13(2)(c)2. lists what the court considers on detriment, including evidence of domestic violence. Section 61.13(2)(c)3. creates a rebuttable presumption that shared parental responsibility is detrimental where a parent has been convicted of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher involving domestic violence, among other triggers, and a separate rebuttable presumption applies against time-sharing for certain offenders, rebuttable only on a specific written finding of no significant risk of harm. The statute adds that whether or not there is a conviction or an injunction for protection, the court shall consider evidence of domestic violence or child abuse as evidence of detriment to the child.