USA – FLORIDA Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisha D. Roy and Carolyn Ware, Sasser, Cestero & Roy
continuity in the process is helpful. Many jurisdictions rotate judges on a bi-annual basis, and for complex cases, this could cause more than one judicial rota ‑ tion during the life of the case. Private judges can be very beneficial for maintaining consistency in the case. Collaborative Law Florida Statutes established the Collaborative Law Process in Florida, which allows parties to settle their cases via a collaborative contract. Each party has a lawyer, and the lawyer and the parties contract to this confidential process of resolution. Joint experts, in both financial and mental health, can be involved to help the parties find creative resolution to their divorce without any litigation. However, if the collaborative process is unsuccessful, the parties must hire new lawyers, start the process over from the beginning and hold all things discovered during the collaborative process confidential. The Collaborative Law Process is very successful in certain parts of Florida and less so in others. Florida has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Juris ‑ diction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Pursuant to § 61.514, Fla. Stat., Florida courts have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if: • Florida is the child’s home state on the date of filing or was the home state of the child within six months before filing if the child is absent from Florida but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in Florida; • a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under the first bullet point, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdic ‑ tion on the grounds that Florida is the more appro ‑ priate forum and: (a) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with Florida beyond their physical presence; and (b) substantial evidence is available in Florida concerning the child’s care, protection, training 3. Child Law 3.1 Choice of Jurisdiction in Children Proceedings
and personal relationships; • all courts having jurisdiction under the first two bullet points have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of Florida is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child; or • no court of any other state would have jurisdic ‑ tion under the criteria specified in the bullet points above. The courts look at the child’s home state to deter ‑ mine jurisdiction. A child’s “home state” is the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person act ‑ ing as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child younger than six months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period. § 61.503 (7), Fla. Stat. The court does not consider the child’s domicile or nationality, but their residence. The child’s physical presence is not necessary to make a custody determination. Florida may invoke emergency jurisdic ‑ tion under the UCCJEA if necessary. 3.2 Living/Contact Arrangements and Child Maintenance Child Arrangements Whether parents agree on child arrangements or not, a parenting plan must be entered in Florida that gov ‑ erns the parties’ relationship and timesharing with the minor child. Florida takes a two-pronged approach to parenting, one being decision-making, the other timesharing, or where the child lays their head at night. In addition to providing a “regular” timesharing sched ‑ ule, the parenting plan will also deal with holidays, school breaks, and assist in decision-making param ‑ eters for the parties. If the parties do not agree, then the court will decide, based on § 61.13, Fla. Stat., an appropriate timesharing schedule and create the parenting plan. Effective 1 July 2023, there is a rebut ‑ table presumption that an equal timesharing schedule is in a child’s best interests and can only be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence in applying the factors contained in the statute. The court is required to make findings regarding any timesharing schedule
303 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook