ANDREA CATALINA CRUZ
v.
GERARDO MORALES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-10-16
No. 3D2023-1560
2024 FL 12054 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024)

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.

Synopsis

Andrea Catalina Cruz appeals a trial court's order denying her petition to relocate with her minor child. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that the trial court's decision was supported by competent, substantial evidence and properly analyzed the statutory factors required under Florida law.

Holding

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relocation petition. The trial court's order and statutory findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and no reversible error occurred during the evidentiary hearing.

Headnotes

[1] Appellate review of a trial court's order on a petition to relocate is limited to an abuse of discretion standard, requiring an assessment of whether the trial court's st…

[2] A trial court must consider and analyze all requisite factors enumerated in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, when ruling on a petition for relocation.

Previewing 2 of 3 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
Key Quotes

“When reviewing an order on a petition to relocate, an appellate court is limited to an abuse of discretion review based on whether the statutory findings made by the trial court are supported by competent, substantial evidence.”

Establishes the standard of review applicable to relocation petitions under Florida law.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Andrea Catalina Cruz sought to relocate with her minor child. The trial court held a four-day evidentiary hearing to consider the petition. The trial …

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.

Topics
Review Best Interests Of The Child Competent Substantial Evidence Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

EMAS, J.

Appellant Andrea Catalina Cruz appeals from the trial court’s order denying her petition to relocate with her minor child. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing over the course of four days, and thereafter entered an order denying the petition for relocation, which properly considered and analyzed each of the requisite factors enumerated in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2023). “When reviewing an order on a petition to relocate, an appellate court is limited to an abuse of discretion review based on whether the statutory findings made by the trial court are supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Mignott v. Mignott, 337 So. 3d 408, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). We find the trial court’s order, and its statutory findings, are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and further conclude that no reversible error was committed during the evidentiary hearing.1 Affirmed.

Footnotes
1 We further note that establishing that relocation is in the best interest of the relocating parent is not the same as establishing that relocation is in the best interest of the child. See, e.g., Coyle v. Coyle, 8 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that trial court erred in focusing on whether the mother’s relocation “would improve the quality of her life, not necessarily the life of the child”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw