ILSE GEVAERT
v.
ALLAN TEH
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a parent's relocation petition when the non-relocating parent presents evidence that, under the statutory factors in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, the proposed relocation is not in the child's best interest.
[1] In a child relocation case, the trial court must consider the full range of statutory factors under section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, rather than focusing narrowly o…
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 intelligence“The trial court's decision will be affirmed if the statutory findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.”
Court citing Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) regarding the standard for reviewing relocation decisions.
Ilse Gevaert sought to relocate her minor child from Miami, Florida to Studio City, California. Allan Teh opposed the relocation, and the trial court …
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2280 Lower Tribunal No. 19-7811-FC-04 ________________
Ilse Gevaert, Appellant,
vs.
Allan Teh, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Multack, Judge.
Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A., and John B. Agnetti and Daniel H. Kent, for appellant.
Buchbinder & Elegant, P.A., and Harris J. Buchbinder, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.
GOODEN, J.
2
Appellant Ilse Gevaert appeals an order denying her petition to relocate her minor child from Miami, Florida to Studio City, California. She asserts that, when the burden shifted, Appellee Allan Teh did not produce sufficient evidence that the proposed relocation was not in the best interest of the child. See § 61.13001(8), Fla. Stat. (2024). Specifically, she asserts that his evidence did not overcome her expert witness’ testimony.
But this argument suffers from tunnel vision. Indeed, the expert witness’ testimony focused solely on what schools are best for the child. Whereas the trial court was required to consider a wider range of factors— those set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. See § 61.13001(7)(a)-(k), Fla. Stat. And it did. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court scrutinized the evidence presented by both parties and performed a detailed analysis of the factors in 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. Ultimately, it found Teh met his burden and the proposed relocation was not in the best interest of the child. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying relocation. Sanabria v. Sanabria, 271 So. 3d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Its findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. See also Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The trial court’s
3
decision will be affirmed if the statutory findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.”). And so, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tirza Diaz De Villegas v. Ulysses Diaz De Villegas (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Sanabria v. Sanabria, 271 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)