Arthur v. Arthur
54 So. 3d 454, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 38, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 41 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a parental relocation case, a trial court must determine whether the relocation is in the best interest of the child based on the circumstances as they exist at the time of the final hearing, not on a prospective analysis of what might be in the child's best interest at a future date.
Facts:
- Shawn M. Arthur (the Husband) and Josette A. Arthur (the Wife) were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
- At the time of the trial, they had a minor child who was sixteen months old.
- In the divorce decree, the Wife was designated as the primary residential parent, and the Husband was granted reasonable visitation.
- The Wife requested permission from the court to permanently relocate with the child from Florida to Michigan.
- The proposed relocation area in Michigan was where the Wife had grown up and had family.
- The Husband’s extended family also lived near the proposed relocation area in Michigan.
Procedural Posture:
- In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court granted the Wife's request to relocate with the parties' minor child.
- The trial court's order authorized the relocation but delayed its effective date until the child turned three years old, which was approximately twenty months after the final hearing.
- The Husband appealed the trial court's judgment to the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing the court made an improper prospective determination of the child's best interests.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Husband petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review, alleging the Second District's decision expressly and directly conflicted with decisions from the First District Court of Appeal on the same issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have the authority to grant a parent's request to relocate with a minor child at a future date based on a prospective determination of the child's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Quince, J.
No. A trial court's best interests determination in a petition for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and be supported by competent, substantial evidence. The court held that a "prospective-based" analysis is unsound because a trial court is not equipped with a "crystal ball" to determine whether a future relocation is in a child's best interests. Many of the statutory factors a court must consider, such as the parents' financial stability or the child's needs, can change significantly over time. The proper approach is a "present-based" analysis, evaluating the child's best interests based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the hearing. The Court reasoned that the trial court implicitly found that relocation was not in the child's best interest at the time of the hearing, as evidenced by its statement that it delayed the move out of concern for the Husband's ability to bond with the child. Therefore, the petition for relocation should have been denied.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a district court split in Florida, establishing a uniform rule against "prospective-based" rulings in child relocation cases. It reinforces the principle of finality in judgments and prevents courts from engaging in speculation about future circumstances, which can be unpredictable and subject to change. By requiring a "present-based" analysis, the Court ensures that decisions about a child's welfare are grounded in current, demonstrable facts, thereby preventing the improper shifting of the burden of proof to the non-relocating parent to challenge the move later.
