Relocation in Florida Parenting Cases: What the Third District Clarified in Harman v. Alonso (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

By Jeffrey T. Donner, Esq.

When a divorced parent seeks to relocate with minor children, Florida law does not favor either side. The court’s sole focus is the children’s best interests, evaluated under the detailed framework set out in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes.

In Harman v. Alonso, Nos. 3D24-0348 & 3D24-995 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 29, 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal issued an important decision clarifying how trial courts must apply that statute — and, just as importantly, what they may not do when evaluating a contested relocation request.

The opinion is significant for parents on both sides of relocation disputes. It reinforces three core principles:

Courts may not rely on speculative future events.
Courts may not deny relocation based on considerations inherent in every move.
Courts may not apply a hidden presumption against relocation when the evidence is evenly balanced.

Below is a practical explanation of what this case means.

The Background

The parents divorced in 2021. Their parenting plan provided for equal timesharing in Miami.

In 2023, the mother petitioned to relocate with the children to San Diego, where her new husband lived. She argued that relocation would enhance the children’s stability and overall quality of life. The father objected, asserting that relocation would harm his close relationship with the children and disrupt their Miami-based family network.

After a four-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the relocation. Although the court found that the mother initially met her burden of proof, it ultimately concluded that the father demonstrated relocation was not in the children’s best interests.

The mother appealed.

The Legal Framework: Section 61.13001

Under section 61.13001:

There is no presumption in favor of or against relocation.
The relocating parent must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the move is in the child’s best interests.
If that burden is met, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to prove the move is not in the child’s best interests.
The court must evaluate all statutory factors in subsection (7)(a)–(k).

Appellate review of factual findings is deferential (abuse of discretion), but whether the statute was properly applied is reviewed de novo.

1. Courts Cannot Rely on Factors Inherent in Every Relocation

The trial court found that, if relocation were granted, the children would need to adapt to new schools, friends, and routines.

The Third District held that this reasoning was improper.

Adjusting to new surroundings is inherent in every relocation. The statute expressly rejects treating such universal consequences as determinative. If “new school” and “new routine” were sufficient reasons to deny relocation, no relocation would ever be granted.

This portion of the decision reinforces that relocation analysis must be individualized and evidence-based — not driven by general discomfort with change.

2. Speculation About Future Events Is Impermissible

The trial court expressed concern that the mother’s finances and standard of living could change “without a supportive relationship” with her new husband.

The Third District rejected this reasoning.

Relocation decisions must be based on present facts — not speculation about what might happen in the future. Courts cannot deny relocation based on concerns that a marriage might fail or that economic conditions might change, unless the future event is objectively certain.

The Florida Supreme Court in Arthur v. Arthur made clear that relocation analysis must be “present-based.” The Third District reaffirmed that principle here.

For parents litigating relocation, this is critical: courts cannot rely on hypothetical future breakdowns of relationships or imagined financial instability.

3. No Hidden Presumption Against Relocation

This is the most important aspect of the opinion.

The trial court found:

The mother met her burden to show relocation was in the children’s best interests.
The father proved he was equally capable, loving, and nurturing.
Based on that equivalence, the father met his burden to show relocation was not in the children’s best interests.

The Third District disagreed.

If both parents are equally capable, the evidence is in equipoise. And when evidence is evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden loses.

Once the burden shifted to the father, he had to prove — by the greater weight of the evidence — that relocation was not in the children’s best interests. Showing he was equally capable was not enough.

By effectively breaking the tie against relocation, the trial court applied an implicit presumption against the move. The statute expressly forbids that.

The appellate court reversed the order in its entirety and remanded for further proceedings.

What This Means for Parents

For Parents Seeking to Relocate

You must present detailed, evidence-based testimony addressing every statutory factor.
Demonstrating enhanced quality of life, stability, and concrete benefits matters.
If you meet your burden, the other parent must affirmatively prove the move is harmful — mere parity is insufficient.
Courts cannot rely on speculation or generalized concerns about adjustment.

For Parents Opposing Relocation

You must do more than show you are a good parent.
You must present evidence that relocation would affirmatively harm the children’s best interests under the statutory factors.
Arguments based solely on the inevitability of change or speculative future risks will not suffice.

Why This Case Is Important

Relocation cases are among the most emotionally charged proceedings in family court. Trial courts are given broad discretion, but that discretion is not unlimited.

Harman v. Alonso reinforces that:

The statutory framework must be applied precisely.
Burden-shifting matters.
Speculation is not evidence.
Courts may not smuggle in a presumption against relocation.

For litigants and counsel, this decision provides a roadmap for properly framing and litigating relocation petitions.

Final Thoughts

Relocation disputes require strategic presentation of evidence and disciplined application of the statutory factors. The Third District’s opinion serves as a reminder that even when a trial court carefully writes findings on each statutory factor, reversal is warranted if the legal framework is misapplied.

These cases turn not on emotion, but on evidence — and on careful adherence to the statute.

If you are facing a contested relocation matter — whether seeking to move or seeking to prevent a move — it is critical to approach the case with a comprehensive, litigation-ready strategy grounded in section 61.13001 and current appellate authority.