Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealtrialdivorce
settlementstatuteappealtrialwilldivorce

Related Cases

Cash v. Cash, 122 So.3d 430, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D2016
View Case »
Sholes v. Sholes, 760 N.E.2d 156
View Case »
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588
View Case »
Benoit v. Benoit, 91 So.3d 1015, 2011-0376 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/8/12)
View Case »
Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fredman v. Fredman, 960 So.2d 52, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1505

Facts

Leslie Ann Fredman (the Mother) and David Lynn Fredman (the Father) divorced in 2002, sharing parental responsibility for their two sons. The Mother sought to relocate with the children to Texas after marrying Mike Melton, who lived there. The Father opposed the move, citing his established relationship with the children and his family in Florida. The trial court initially denied the Mother's request for relocation, and after an appeal, the court reaffirmed its decision, finding that the move was not in the children's best interests.

The Mother and David Lynn Fredman (the Father) have two sons, born December 21, 1994, and December 22, 1997. The parties divorced in October of 2002, and the final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA).

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the Mother's request to relocate with the children to Texas, and is the Florida relocation statute constitutional?

The Mother contends that section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), the parental relocation statute, is unconstitutional because it abridges her fundamental rights to privacy and travel and violates her right to equal protection of the law.

Rule

The court must consider the factors outlined in section 61.13(2)(d) of the Florida Statutes regarding parental relocation, which includes the best interests of the child and the rights of both parents.

When the legislature enacted section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes, in 1997, it provided, 'No presumption shall arise in favor of or against a request to relocate when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact and access with the secondary residential parent.'

Analysis

The court applied the statutory factors to determine that the proposed relocation would not improve the children's quality of life and that the Father had a significant role in their lives. The trial court found that the Mother had not demonstrated that the move would benefit the children, especially given the strong family ties and support system the children had in Florida.

The trial court recognized that the move would improve the home life for the Mother and her new husband. However, in Berrebbi, this court reversed an order that allowed relocation, stating that '[a]ny evidence regarding the benefits of relocation related to the Mother and her new husband' and that there was no evidence that relocation would be good for the child.

Conclusion

The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the relocation statute was constitutional and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Mother's request to relocate.

The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the relocation statute was constitutional and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Mother's request to relocate.

Who won?

The Father prevailed in the case because the court found that the relocation was not in the best interests of the children and upheld the trial court's decision.

The Father prevailed in the case because the court found that the relocation was not in the best interests of the children and upheld the trial court's decision.

You must be