Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 752 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 752 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 752

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Chapter 752
GRANDPARENTAL VISITATION RIGHTS
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 752
CHAPTER 752
GRANDPARENTAL VISITATION RIGHTS
752.001 Definitions.
752.011 Petition for grandparent visitation with a minor child.
752.015 Mediation of visitation disputes.
752.02 Persons who must be served notice of petition; manner of service.
752.071 Effect of adoption by stepparent or close relative.
752.001 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:
(1) “Grandparent” shall include great-grandparent.
(2) “Missing” means having whereabouts which are unknown for a period of at least 90 days and not being able to be located after a diligent search and inquiry. Such search and inquiry for a missing person must include, at a minimum, inquiries of all relatives of the person who can reasonably be identified by the petitioner, inquiries of hospitals in the areas where the person last resided, inquiries of the person’s recent employers, inquiries of state and federal agencies likely to have information about the person, inquiries of appropriate utility and postal providers, a thorough search of at least one electronic database specifically designed for locating persons, and inquiries of appropriate law enforcement agencies.
(3) “Persistent vegetative state” has the same meaning as provided in s. 765.101(15).
History.—s. 5, ch. 90-273; s. 1, ch. 2015-134; s. 84, ch. 2016-10.
752.011 Petition for grandparent visitation with a minor child.—A grandparent of a minor child whose parents are deceased, missing, or in a persistent vegetative state, or whose one parent is deceased, missing, or in a persistent vegetative state and whose other parent has been convicted of a felony or an offense of violence evincing behavior that poses a substantial threat of harm to the minor child’s health or welfare, may petition the court for court-ordered visitation with the grandchild under this section.
(1) Upon the filing of a petition by a grandparent for visitation, the court shall hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of parental unfitness or significant harm to the child. Absent such a showing, the court shall dismiss the petition and may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if the court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally liable for the death of the other parent of the child or civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death of the other parent of the child, there is a presumption for granting reasonable visitation with the petitioning grandparent or stepgrandparent if he or she is the parent of the child’s deceased parent. This presumption may only be overcome if the court finds that granting such visitation is not in the best interests of the child.
(3) If the court finds that there is prima facie evidence that a parent is unfit or that there is significant harm to the child, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem and shall refer the matter to family mediation as provided in s. 752.015. If family mediation does not successfully resolve the issue of grandparent visitation, the court shall proceed with a final hearing.
(4) After conducting a final hearing on the issue of visitation, the court may award reasonable visitation to the grandparent with respect to the minor child if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit or that there is significant harm to the child, that visitation is in the best interest of the minor child, and that the visitation will not materially harm the parent-child relationship.
(5) In assessing the best interests of the child under subsection (4), the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances affecting the mental and emotional well-being of the minor child, including:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the minor child and the grandparent, including those resulting from the relationship that had been previously allowed by the child’s parent.
(b) The length and quality of the previous relationship between the minor child and the grandparent, including the extent to which the grandparent was involved in providing regular care and support for the child.
(c) Whether the grandparent established ongoing personal contact with the minor child before the death of the parent, before the onset of the parent’s persistent vegetative state, or before the parent was missing.
(d) The reasons cited by the respondent parent in ending contact or visitation between the minor child and the grandparent.
(e) Whether there has been significant and demonstrable mental or emotional harm to the minor child as a result of the disruption in the family unit, whether the child derived support and stability from the grandparent, and whether the continuation of such support and stability is likely to prevent further harm.
(f) The existence or threat to the minor child of mental injury as defined in s. 39.01.
(g) The present mental, physical, and emotional health of the minor child.
(h) The present mental, physical, and emotional health of the grandparent.
(i) The recommendations of the minor child’s guardian ad litem, if one is appointed.
(j) The result of any psychological evaluation of the minor child.
(k) The preference of the minor child if the child is determined to be of sufficient maturity to express a preference.
(l) A written testamentary statement by the deceased parent regarding visitation with the grandparent. The absence of a testamentary statement is not deemed to provide evidence that the deceased or missing parent or parent in a persistent vegetative state would have objected to the requested visitation.
(m) Other factors that the court considers necessary to making its determination.
(6) In assessing material harm to the parent-child relationship under subsection (4), the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances affecting the parent-child relationship, including:
(a) Whether there have been previous disputes between the grandparent and the parent over childrearing or other matters related to the care and upbringing of the minor child.
(b) Whether visitation would materially interfere with or compromise parental authority.
(c) Whether visitation can be arranged in a manner that does not materially detract from the parent-child relationship, including the quantity of time available for enjoyment of the parent-child relationship and any other consideration related to disruption of the schedule and routine of the parent and the minor child.
(d) Whether visitation is being sought for the primary purpose of continuing or establishing a relationship with the minor child with the intent that the child benefit from the relationship.
(e) Whether the requested visitation would expose the minor child to conduct, moral standards, experiences, or other factors that are inconsistent with influences provided by the parent.
(f) The nature of the relationship between the child’s parent and the grandparent.
(g) The reasons cited by the parent in ending contact or visitation between the minor child and the grandparent which was previously allowed by the parent.
(h) The psychological toll of visitation disputes on the minor child.
(i) Other factors that the court considers necessary in making its determination.
(7) Part II of chapter 61 applies to actions brought under this section.
(8) If actions under this section and s. 61.13 are pending concurrently, the courts are strongly encouraged to consolidate the actions in order to minimize the burden of litigation on the minor child and the other parties.
(9) An order for grandparent visitation may be modified upon a showing by the person petitioning for modification that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and that modification of visitation is in the best interest of the minor child.
(10) An original action requesting visitation under this section may be filed by a grandparent only once during any 2-year period, except on good cause shown that the minor child is suffering, or may suffer, significant and demonstrable mental or emotional harm caused by a parental decision to deny visitation between a minor child and the grandparent, which was not known to the grandparent at the time of filing an earlier action.
(11) This section does not provide for grandparent visitation with a minor child placed for adoption under chapter 63 except as provided in s. 752.071 with respect to adoption by a stepparent or close relative.
(12) Venue shall be in the county where the minor child primarily resides, unless venue is otherwise governed by chapter 39, chapter 61, or chapter 63.
History.—s. 3, ch. 2015-134; s. 1, ch. 2022-217.
752.015 Mediation of visitation disputes.—It is the public policy of this state that families resolve differences over grandparent visitation within the family. It is the further public policy of this state that, when families are unable to resolve differences relating to grandparent visitation, the family participate in any formal or informal mediation services that may be available. If families are unable to resolve differences relating to grandparent visitation and a petition is filed pursuant to s. 752.011, the court shall, if such services are available in the circuit, refer the case to family mediation in accordance with the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.
History.—s. 7, ch. 90-273; s. 6, ch. 2015-134.
752.02 Persons who must be served notice of petition; manner of service.—Notice of the filing of, and a copy of, the petition for grandparental visitation rights shall be served on the parents of the minor child in the manner prescribed by chapter 48.
History.—s. 1, ch. 84-64; s. 64, ch. 85-62.
752.071 Effect of adoption by stepparent or close relative.—After the adoption of a minor child by a stepparent or close relative, the stepparent or close relative may petition the court to terminate an order granting grandparent visitation under this chapter which was entered before the adoption. The court may terminate the order unless the grandparent is able to show that the criteria of s. 752.011 authorizing the visitation continue to be satisfied.
History.—s. 5, ch. 2015-134.

F.S. 752 on Google Scholar

F.S. 752 on Casetext

Amendments to 752


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 752
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 752.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 752

Total Results: 20

Wilson Verela v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-03-05

Snippet: 10 10 The Oxford English Dictionary 752 (1st ed. 1933). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

VA Logistics, LLC v. Kristen Kulp, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Adam James Kulp

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-02-26

Snippet: Execu- Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co., 752 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 2000). In this case,

Thomas Caggiano v. Duval County School Board

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-02-21

Snippet: of Wine, Inc. v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., 752 So. 2d 728, 729–30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (recognizing

Fowler, Ribbing v. Burnham, Tumbleson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-02-19

Snippet: (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)). But if the trial

BAXTER, ESTATE OF BRIAN BAXTER v. MORELLI, VENEZIA TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-02-12

Snippet: (footnote omitted) (quoting Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2000)). At issue here is the

Rodney Shands v. City of Marathon

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-02-05

Snippet: resultant claim preclusion. See Shands II, 261 So. 3d at 752. This case was decided under Florida’s “old” summary

Ferrari S.P.A. v. Gregory Romanelli and TR3 Racing, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-29

Snippet: Health Holdings, Inc. v. Caceres, 357 So. 3d 746, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (quoting Gadea v. Star Cruises

Jonathan Sheppard v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-08

Snippet: ________________ No. 3D23-0752 Lower Tribunal No. F22-16040

Rosario Valer v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-08

Snippet: policy. Deshazior v. SafePoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 754-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Consequently,

Raquel Quesada v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-02

Snippet: See Deshazior v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming summary judgment

Michael Alexander Trujillo v. Mysora Garcia

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-18

Snippet: not authorized.” DeGuzman v. Balsini, 930 So. 2d 752, 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “A lis pendens

Pro Choice Remediation Inc. A/A/O St. James AME Church of Trustee v. Old Dominion Insurance Company

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-27

Snippet: discretion.” Wallace v. Keldie, 249 So. 3d 747, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citation omitted). Whether a

Gessner v. Southern Company and Gulf Power Company

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-20

Snippet: (Fla.1994)); see also Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.2000) (stating that the FWA

Atlantic Coast Conference v. Florida State University Board of Trustees

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-04

Snippet: Dover, LLC v. LSREF2 Baron LLC, 112 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); see also Siegel v. Siegel, 575

Carline Etienne v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-30

Snippet: appropriate); Deshazior v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming summary judgment

M.N., P.N. v. Agency for Persons With Disabilities

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-04

Snippet: the well-being of the child. Pederson v. Pederson, 752 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Pipistrel D.O.O., Etc. v. Susan L. Ciccolini, Etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-25

Snippet: Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co. Ltd., 752 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 2000). “A court can exercise

Leonard Mecca and Kathleen Mecca v. Richard Berk, Arnaud Sitbon and ESJ Capital Partners, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-11

Snippet: Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)). Appellants’ complaint alleges

Clara Gomez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-04

Snippet: omitted)); Deshazior v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Once the movant produces

Jody Meyer v. U-Haul Co of Florida, and Cindy Pronto

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-04

Snippet: Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 109 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2013) does not require a different result.