Navigating Florida’s New Equal Timesharing Presumption: What You Need to Know

Divorce and separation represent challenging transitions for families,  particularly when children are involved. Florida’s legal framework for  determining parental responsibility and timesharing continually evolves to  prioritize a child’s best interests. A significant legislative change in 2023  introduced a rebuttable presumption that equal timesharing of a minor child  is in the child’s best interest, marking a pivotal shift in family law.  Understanding this new default and its implications becomes paramount for  parents seeking to navigate these complex legal waters. 

A Historical Perspective on Florida’s Parenting Laws 

Florida’s approach to child custody has transformed considerably over the years.  Historically, the “tender years doctrine,” which often led to uneven timesharing,  began to wane. The 2008 amendments to Florida Statute 61.13 brought a major  shift. The law eliminated terms such as “primary residential parent” and  “secondary residential parent,” replacing them with the more neutral concept of  shared parental responsibility. This version also introduced the mandatory  requirement for a parenting plan and a timesharing schedule, placing greater  emphasis on parents’ ability to co-parent effectively. Under this prior law, no  presumption favored either parent regarding timesharing. 

The 2023 Equal Timesharing Presumption: A New Default 

The 2023 legislative changes took another significant step by establishing a  rebuttable presumption that equal timesharing is in the minor child’s best  interest. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)(1) (2023). This means that courts now begin  with the assumption that a child benefits from spending roughly equal time with  both parents. To deviate from this default, a party must prove by a  preponderance of the evidence that equal timesharing is not in the child’s  best interest. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)(1) (2023). 

The court retains broad discretion, however, as the child’s best interest remains  the primary consideration in establishing or modifying parental responsibility  and timesharing schedules. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c) (2023). Courts must evaluate  all of the twenty factors outlined in Florida Statute 61.13(3) and make specific  written findings of fact to support any timesharing schedule, unless the parties  agree to the schedule themselves. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)(1) (2023); K. Beth Luna  & Diane Kirigin, Recapping the 2023 Legislative Year, 38 Fla. B. Fam. L. Sect.  Commentator 205, 209 (2023).

Key Factors Guiding Best Interest Determinations 

Florida Statute 61.13(3) outlines numerous factors a court must consider to  determine a child’s best interests. These include, but are not limited to: 

  • The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and  encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the  time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required.  Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(a) (2023). 
  • The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment  and the desirability of maintaining continuity. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(d)  (2023). 
  • The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid  to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent  traveling. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(e) (2023). 
  • The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a  consistent routine for the child, such as discipline, and daily schedules for  homework, meals, and bedtime. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(k) (2023). 
  • The capacity and disposition of each parent to protect the child from the  ongoing litigation as demonstrated by not discussing the litigation with the  child, not sharing documents or electronic media related to the litigation  with the child, and refraining from disparaging comments about the other  parent to the child. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(r) (2023). 
  • The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated  capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s developmental  needs. Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(s) (2023). 

Practical Implications and the Role of Legal Counsel 

These legislative updates mean that while equal timesharing is now the  presumptive starting point, it is not automatic. Parents must still present  compelling evidence, aligning with the statutory factors, to support their  proposed timesharing arrangements. An experienced family law attorney helps  parents discern typical developmental responses from genuine issues,  encouraging a problem-solving approach rather than fueling unnecessary  conflict. Such an attorney fosters low-stress environments and emphasizes the  importance of consistent routines and open communication between parents for  the child’s well-being. 

Navigating Florida’s evolving family law landscape demands nuanced  understanding and strategic advocacy. An attorney proficient in these new  statutes can provide invaluable guidance, ensuring that any parenting plan truly  serves the child’s best interests while protecting parental rights.

About the Author: Anthony Meehan Genova is a highly qualified legal professional  specializing in family law, particularly known for his extensive experience in mediation and his  commitment to community service. He is Board Certified in Marital & Family Law and has  been a Supreme Court Certified Marital & Family Law Mediator since 2019. Mr. Genova has  been a dedicated member of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the Florida  Bar since 2016. His significant involvement within this section includes various leadership and  committee roles, demonstrating a deep engagement with the evolution and practice of family law.  He has served as Co-chair of the Rules and Forms Committee (2018-2020) and Chair of the  Membership Committee (2016-2017). His committee work also includes roles as Vice Chair of  the Domestic Violence Committee (2017-2018) and Co-Vice Chair for Diversity and Inclusion  (2023-2024), among others. He was also a member of the Equitable Distribution Committee from  2017 to 2020 and the Support Issues Committee from 2014 to 2018.