relocation factors in Florida

2019On review of the evidence presented at the hearings, we are not convinced that the court would have ordered the children's return to Florida had the court considered each of the relocation factors as it is required to do.2 See Cecemski v. Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[W]e find that the facts in virtually every pertinent matter of consequence do not provide substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's findings . . . ."); cf. Mian, 775 So. 2d at 359 ("The record demonstrates that the trial judge considered . . . the effects of the temporary move to Atlanta

2011See generally Mian v. Mian, 775 So.2d 357, 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("[I]t is necessary for a trial judge to consider the relocation factors at the earliest opportunity because of the wide-ranging and intense ramifications that moving can have upon the best interest of the child.”); accord Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So.2d 1053, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 6 .

2019See Decker v. Lyle, 848 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Mian v. Mian, 775 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

2013In Decker v. Lyle, 848 So.2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), on similar facts, the court concluded that even though the case was not strictly a relocation, the relocation factors should be considered in determining the best interests of the child under section 61.13.

2003See Wilson v. Wilson, 827 So.2d 401, 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing for application of the correct standard for relocation under section 61.13(2)(d), where it was not clear whether the statute had been applied); Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding same standard should be used for deciding temporary and permanent relocation requests).

2000Thus, as the Fourth District noted in Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), if a parent's act of taking the child away from the marital jurisdiction ultimately is revealed not to have been a wise decision, it is difficult for either a trial court or an appellate court to rectify the situation.

2019On review of the evidence presented at the hearings, we are not convinced that the court would have ordered the children's return to Florida had the court considered each of the relocation factors as it is required to do.2 See Cecemski v. Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[W]e find that the facts in virtually every pertinent matter of consequence do not provide substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's findings . . . ."); cf. Mian, 775 So. 2d at 359 ("The record demonstrates that the trial judge considered . . . the effects of the temporary move to Atlanta

2019On review of the evidence presented at the hearings, we are not convinced that the court would have ordered the children's return to Florida had the court considered each of the relocation factors as it is required to do.2 See Cecemski v. Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[W]e find that the facts in virtually every pertinent matter of consequence do not provide substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's findings . . . ."); cf. Mian, 775 So. 2d at 359 ("The record demonstrates that the trial judge considered . . . the effects of the temporary move to Atlanta

2012See Tillotson v. Tillotson, 32 So.3d 191, 191-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (determining that when there is no transcript of the relocation hearing so that the appellate court is unable to determine if competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings, the order must be upheld unless it is erroneous as a matter of law).

2011See generally Mian v. Mian, 775 So.2d 357, 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("[I]t is necessary for a trial judge to consider the relocation factors at the earliest opportunity because of the wide-ranging and intense ramifications that moving can have upon the best interest of the child.”); accord Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So.2d 1053, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 6 .

2003See Wilson v. Wilson, 827 So.2d 401, 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing for application of the correct standard for relocation under section 61.13(2)(d), where it was not clear whether the statute had been applied); Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding same standard should be used for deciding temporary and permanent relocation requests).