CHRISTINE CONNERS, WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
SHAWN MULLINS, HUSBAND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the trial court's order requiring the child to return to Tallahassee, holding that when relocation has already occurred, the proper legal standard is whether the actual relocation serves the child's best interests under section 61.13001(7), not whether the court would have permitted the relocation prospectively.
When a parent has already relocated with a child, the trial court must evaluate whether the actual relocation is in the child's best interests under section 61.13001(7) factors, rather than applying the standard for prospective relocation approval.
[1] When a parent has already relocated with a child, the trial court must evaluate whether the actual relocation serves the child's best interests under section 61.13001(7)…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristine Conners moved to Albany, New York while pregnant with the parties' child. After the relocation had occurred, Shawn Mullins petitioned for re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Christine Conners, appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. We agree with appellant that the trial court, in ordering her to return to Tallahassee with the parties’ child, employed an incorrect legal standard. In evaluating the child’s best interests pursuant to section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, the trial court primarily focused on how it would have ruled on the issue of relocation had it been faced with the issue prior to appellant’s move to Albany, New York, which occurred while appellant was pregnant with the parties’ child. However, because the relocation had already occurred when appellee, Shawn Mullins, petitioned for relief, the pertinent question was not whether the trial court would have permitted the relocation in the first place but whether the actual relocation was in the child’s best interests pursuant to the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7). See generally In re B.T.G., 993 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that neither party offered any testimony concerning the “impact of the relocation to the Seattle area [which had already occurred] on the children”); Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So.2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting that the trial court weighed a number of factors in deciding that the child’s move to Orlando was not in the child’s best interests and that the court found that the father’s close relationship with his son would be affected if the son “continues to live in Orlando”).
Accordingly, we REVERSE the final judgment and REMAND the case for reconsideration on the relocation issue.
VAN NORTWICK and CLARK, JJ. and BERGER, WENDY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milton v. Julianna Milton, 113 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…arties were not prepared to have a full hearing on the best interests of the child — a necessary consideration to the relocation question, which takes into account certain statutorily specified factors. § 61.18001(7), Fla. Stat.; Conners v. Mullins, 27 So. 3d 199, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Like in Raulerson, Mr. Milton limited his argument at the hearing to the permissibility of Mrs. Milton’s relocation without following the statutory requirements. It is clear she did not follow the requirements and Mr. Milto…
-
Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ary to support approving the relocation in a final judgment. § 61.13001(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). In connection with the second finding, the court is required to consider the factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7)(a)-(k). See Conners v. Mullins, 27 So. 3d 199, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that the section 61.13001(7) factors reveal whether relocation is in the child’s best interest). The parent wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in t…
Authorities Cited
- Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- In the Interest of B.T.G. and B.S.G. v. M.G., 993 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)