BURGESS
v.
BURGESS

Fla. 2d DCA | 2025-01-31
No. 2D2024-1329
2025 FL 805 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2025)

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

Sarah Burgess appealed a trial court order denying her petition to temporarily relocate with the parties' minor children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Burgess failed to meet her burden of showing that relocation was in the best interests of the children.


Holding

The trial court's denial of the relocation petition was proper. Burgess failed to carry her burden to show that relocation was in the best interests of the minor children as required by Florida law.


Headnotes

[1] In a child relocation case, the relocating parent bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested relocation is in the best interests of the minor children under Flo…

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

Key Quotes

“The record supports the trial court's determination that she did not carry her burden to show that relocation is in the best interests of the minor children.”

Establishes that the appellate court's affirmance was based on Burgess's failure to meet the statutory burden of proof regarding the children's best interests.

Facts & Procedural History

Sarah Burgess and Tyler Burgess are parties in a family law matter involving minor children. Burgess sought permission to temporarily relocate with th…

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.

Opinion of the Court

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Sarah Burgess appeals the trial court's nonfinal order denying her petition to temporarily relocate with the parties' minor children. Burgess raises several issues, none of which warrant reversal. The record supports the trial court's determination that she did not carry her burden to show that relocation is in the best interests of the minor children. See § 61.13001(8), Fla. Stat. (2024); Coyle v. Coyle, 8 So. 3d 1271, 1272-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Affirmed.

VILLANTI and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw