Anthony Meehan Genova, Esq., B.C.S.
Florida child custody law has undergone a fundamental transformation in recent years. By enacting major legislative reforms to Section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Legislature established two monumental changes: a statutory rebuttable presumption in favor of equal time-sharing and the complete removal of the historical requirement that a substantial change in circumstances must be “unanticipated” to modify a parenting plan.
Together, these statutory updates modernize domestic relations practice. They lower artificial procedural hurdles for parents seeking greater involvement in their children’s lives while maintaining the child’s best interests as the ultimate governing standard. The practical operation of these statutory shifts was forcefully demonstrated by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Ramjas v. Gonzalez, No. 4D2025-2779, 2026 WL 2588641 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026). For parents in Lakeland and throughout Central Florida, these changes open new paths to modify custody arrangements that no longer reflect family life.
Historically, a parent seeking to modify an established parenting plan or time-sharing schedule faced an extraordinary evidentiary burden. Under former jurisprudence, the moving parent had to prove three distinct elements:
This “unanticipated” requirement frequently trapped parents in rigid, outdated custody schedules. Courts routinely denied petitions from parents who had completed medical residencies, resolved temporary job instability, or relocated closer to their children, reasoning that such life changes were foreseeable when the original decree was entered.
Recognizing these artificial barriers, the Florida Legislature amended Section 61.13(3) of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2023 (Ch. 23-315, § 2, Laws of Fla.). As noted in Baez v. Edwards, No. 1D2025-2372, 2026 WL 1968270, at *1 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA July 8, 2026), and reaffirmed in Ramjas v. Gonzalez, 2026 WL 2588641, at *1 n.2, the legislature explicitly deleted the requirement that a substantial change in circumstances must be “unanticipated.”
Concurrently, Section 61.13(2)(c)1 was enacted to create a statutory rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing (50/50) is in the best interests of the minor child. To rebut this presumption, an opposing party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interests.
The intersection of these statutory reforms reached the appellate court in Ramjas v. Gonzalez, 2026 WL 2588641. In Ramjas, the father, a physician, signed a May 2022 parenting plan granting the mother sole parental responsibility and sole time-sharing shortly after the child’s birth. At that time, the father resided in New Jersey, working 80 to 100 hours per week in an arduous medical residency.
In 2024, after completing his medical residency, the father accepted a fellowship position at a hospital in Aventura, Florida, moved to Fort Lauderdale (a 20-minute drive from the mother in Hialeah), and established a predictable 40-hour workweek. He petitioned to modify the parenting plan to obtain equal time-sharing.
The trial court denied the father’s petition in its entirety, finding that his relocation to Florida did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances and that granting any time-sharing was not in the child’s best interests.
The Substantial Change Determination
On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s finding regarding substantial change. Writing for the panel, Judge Gross emphasized two critical points:
Crucially, because the legislature removed the “unanticipated” requirement from Section 61.13(3), it was entirely irrelevant whether the father’s completion of medical residency or relocation to Florida was foreseen in 2022.
Although the father established a substantial change in circumstances, the Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s finding that an immediate modification to 50/50 equal time-sharing was not in the child’s best interests.
Rebutting the Equal Timesharing Presumption
The court held that the mother successfully rebutted the Section 61.13(2)(c)1 equal time-sharing presumption under Section 61.13(3)(d), which prioritizes “the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.” Because the four-year-old child had never met the father in person and lived in a stable home with the mother, uprooting the child to spend 50% of her time with a father who was functionally a complete stranger was not in her best interests (Ramjas, 2026 WL 2588641, at *5).
Reversal of the Zero-Contact Order
However, the Fourth DCA held that the trial court committed a severe abuse of discretion by refusing any modification whatsoever and denying the father all contact with his child.
The appellate court emphasized several foundational principles:
The Fourth DCA remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to devise a progressive time-sharing schedule—beginning with telephonic and supervised visits and gradually expanding to unsupervised majority time-sharing—backed by specific written findings of fact under Section 61.13(3).
Key Takeaways for Litigants and Practitioners
Is your current parenting plan still working for your family? Our custody modification attorneys in Lakeland can evaluate whether your circumstances support a change and guide you through each step.
Anthony Meehan Genova, Esq., B.C.S., is a legal professional specializing in family law, particularly known for his extensive experience in trial and his commitment to community service. He has physical offices in Lakeland and Orlando as well as a remote office in Weston, Florida. He graduated from the University of Miami Law School in 1986 and won his first murder trial in 1987.
Mr. Genova is Board Certified in Marital & Family Law. This certification, widely regarded as the “gold standard” for Florida lawyers, signifies Florida’s official, independent determination of a lawyer’s expertise to practice in a specialty field of law. The Board Certification program, overseen by The Florida Supreme Court and administered by The Florida Bar, rigorously evaluates all board-certified lawyers for credibility, expertise, professionalism, and ethics.
To achieve this esteemed certification, Mr. Genova demonstrated a dedication to achieving a heightened level of excellence through character, professionalism, ethics, and credibility. The rigorous process requires at least five years of practice, substantial involvement in the chosen area, successful passing of a comprehensive examination, and a rigorous peer-review process. Additionally, board-certified lawyers must satisfy continuing legal education requirements that are more robust than those for general licensure. This certification is valid for five years and requires continued practice and attendance of Florida Bar-approved continuing legal education courses for recertification. As of 2023, only 260 lawyers in Florida (less than 1% of the 114,000 eligible Florida Bar members) have earned board certification in Marital and Family Law. Clients retaining a board-certified lawyer like Mr. Genova gain access to specialized expertise, professionalism & ethics, credibility, and a heightened dedication to excellence, offering assurance of a heightened level of proficiency in Marital & Family Law.
In addition to his board certification, Mr. Genova has been a Supreme Court Certified Marital & Family Law Mediator since 2019.
Mr. Genova is also trained in Collaborative family law since 2017.
He 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. Mr. Genova is currently the 2025-26 Chairman of the Domestic Violence Committee and has a “Stand Your Ground” article published in the September/October 2026 Florida Bar Journal.
Anthony Genova is Qualified to be Lead Counsel in Defense of Individuals Facing the Death Penalty.
Mr. Genova is a partner with Anthony J. Caggiano, Esq., B.C.S. who is Board Certified in Civil Trial and specializes in personal injury and medical malpractice. Mr. Caggiano’s office is in downtown Orlando.