Modifying a Florida Parenting Plan: When and How

By Nadia Pazos, Family Law Attorney, Pazos Law Group · Updated May 28, 2026  ·  ← All blog posts

Florida courts will modify a parenting plan, but the standard is intentionally high. A parent must prove a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances. Here’s what qualifies, what doesn’t, and the procedural steps to file.

Which Florida Statutes Govern Time-Sharing and Parenting Plans? (§ 61.13, eff. 1 July 2023)

Since 1 July 2023, Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)1. has carried a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in a child’s best interests. Every proposition below is tied to the pinpoint subsection that supports it. Links go to the official text published by the Florida Legislature.

• § 61.13(2)(c)1. — creates a rebuttable presumption, effective 1 July 2023, that equal time-sharing is in the minor child’s best interests; a party must rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence.
• § 61.13(2)(b) — sets the mandatory minimum contents of a parenting plan: daily tasks, time-sharing schedule, designated decision-making, communication methods, and exchange locations.
• § 61.13(2)(c) — requires a “substantial and material change of circumstances” before a parenting plan or time-sharing schedule can be modified.
• § 61.13(2)(c)2. — requires shared parental responsibility unless the court finds it would be detrimental to the child.
• § 61.13(2)(c)7. — guarantees both parents access to the child’s medical, dental, and school records unless a court order revokes it.
• § 61.13(3) — makes best interests the primary consideration and lists the 20 statutory factors in paragraphs (a) through (t).
• § 61.13(3) — also provides that a parent moving to within 50 miles of the other parent may be a substantial and material change supporting modification.
• § 61.13(4)(c)1. — requires the court to award makeup time-sharing when a schedule is denied without proper cause.
• § 61.13(4)(c)2. — permits an award of costs and attorney’s fees against the noncompliant parent.
• § 61.13(5) — confirms that an equal time-sharing order does not preclude a child support order.
• § 61.30(1)(a) — makes the guidelines schedule the presumptive amount of child support.
• § 61.30(11)(b)8. — defines a “substantial amount of time” as at least 20 percent of the overnights in the year.
• § 61.13001 — governs relocation of 50 miles or more for 60 or more consecutive days.
• § 61.14 — governs modification and enforcement of support after the judgment.
• § 61.16 — governs attorney’s fee awards between the parties.
• § 44.102(2)(c) — requires referral of custody, visitation, and parental-responsibility disputes to family mediation, with an exception where domestic violence would compromise the process.
• §§ 61.501–61.542 — the UCCJEA governs which state has jurisdiction over the parenting issues.
• § 61.183 — governs mediation of contested parenting issues; the records exemption is in subsection (3).
• § 44.405 — establishes mediation confidentiality and the mediation privilege, and its exceptions.
• § 61.052 — supplies the ground for the underlying dissolution in which the parenting plan was entered.
• § 61.075(1) — divides property from an equal premise, on a track separate from the time-sharing analysis.
• § 61.13(2)(a) — allows the court to approve or modify a parenting plan even when the child is not physically present in Florida, where the child was removed to avoid the court’s jurisdiction.
• § 61.13(2)(b)2. — requires the plan to specify the time the child spends with each parent.
• § 61.13(2)(b)5. — requires the plan to designate authorized exchange locations unless both parents agree otherwise in writing.
• § 61.13(4)(a) — bars a parent owed support from refusing to honor the time-sharing schedule because support was not paid.
• § 61.13(4)(b) — requires a parent whose time-sharing was violated to keep paying ordered support.
• § 61.13(6) — bars denial of shared parental responsibility or time-sharing solely because a parent is or is believed to be HIV positive.

Source: Florida Legislature, 2025 Florida Statutes. Fla. Stat. ch. 61 Fla. Stat. ch. 61

“Unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the minor child.” — Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)1.

“A determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child.” — Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)

“If the parents of a child are residing greater than 50 miles apart at the time of the entry of the last order establishing time-sharing and a parent moves within 50 miles of the other parent, then that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances.” — Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)

Answers to the Questions the Statute Actually Decides

Is 50/50 time-sharing automatic in Florida after § 61.13(2)(c)1.?

No. It is a rebuttable presumption, not a mandate. The starting point is equal time-sharing, and a parent who wants a different schedule must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interests, measured against the 20 factors in § 61.13(3).

What is a “substantial and material change in circumstances”?

It is the threshold § 61.13(3) imposes before any parenting plan or time-sharing schedule can be modified. The change generally must be significant, material, and not reasonably contemplated when the last order was entered, and the modification must independently serve the child’s best interests.

Does moving closer to the other parent count as a change under § 61.13(3)?

It can. Where the parents lived more than 50 miles apart when the last time-sharing order was entered and one parent moves within 50 miles of the other, the statute allows the court to treat that move as a substantial and material change supporting modification.

How many overnights matter for child support under § 61.30(11)(b)8.?

At least 20 percent of the overnights in the year. That is the statutory definition of a “substantial amount of time,” and reaching it changes the guideline calculation.

Statutory authority checked against the 2025 Florida Statutes on 6 August 2026.

The Florida Modification Standard

Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3) and Florida case law, the parent seeking modification must prove two elements:

1. A substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has occurred since the prior order.
2. Modification serves the best interests of the child under the 20+ statutory factors.

Both elements are necessary. A change that is substantial but anticipated (for example, the child entering kindergarten when the original plan addressed school start) generally does not warrant modification. A change that is unanticipated but minor (one parent now works in a different building of the same employer) also does not qualify. The substantial-and-unanticipated threshold is intentionally high to provide stability for children.

The Wade v. Hirschman framework

The seminal modern case on Florida modification standards is Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005). The Florida Supreme Court there confirmed that the petitioning parent bears the burden of proving, by competent substantial evidence, both: (1) the substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances, and (2) that modification is in the child’s best interests under the statutory factors. The court rejected attempts to lower the threshold through informal "extraordinary burden" reformulations — the test is what the statute and longstanding caselaw say it is.

Practical implication. A modification petition that pleads only the second prong (best interests) without pleading specific facts establishing a substantial, material, and unanticipated change is vulnerable to dismissal on the pleadings. The threshold finding must be made before the court ever reaches the best-interest factors.

Changes That Typically Qualify

Florida courts have modified parenting plans in cases involving:

• Relocation: When a parent moves 50+ miles away for 60+ days, Florida’s relocation statute under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 applies, often requiring a complete reworking of the time-sharing schedule.
• Significant change in work schedule: A parent who changes from a 9-to-5 schedule to overnight or rotating shifts, or who loses the job that enabled afternoon caregiving.
• Child’s school transition: When the child enters elementary school, middle school, or high school and the existing schedule no longer works around school hours, extracurriculars, or transportation distance.
• Documented safety concerns: Evidence of substance abuse, domestic violence, child neglect or abuse, mental health deterioration, or criminal conviction by the time-sharing parent.
• Substantial change in the child’s needs: Diagnosis of a medical condition or special needs requiring different caregiving arrangements.
• Older child’s reasonable preference: A teenager’s reasonable preference, considered alongside other factors, can support modification. The court interviews the child in some cases.
• Parent’s long-term incapacity: Serious medical condition, incarceration, or military deployment that materially affects ability to comply with the current plan.

Worked example: relocation triggering modification

Original parenting plan: 50/50 time-sharing in Miami-Dade. Mother (majority time-share parent on school days) receives a job offer in Orlando, 230 miles away. Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001 (the Florida relocation statute), any move of 50+ miles for 60+ days requires either written agreement or court permission. Because 50/50 schedules become physically impossible at that distance, modification is functionally required. The court will reconfigure the parenting plan around the new geography — typically converting one parent to majority time-share during school year and the other to expanded summer/holiday time-share.

Worked example: work schedule change

Father’s original schedule allowed Wednesday-evening overnights. He is promoted to a regional sales role requiring Tuesday-Thursday travel three weeks per month. The Wednesday overnights are no longer feasible. This is a substantial, material, and unanticipated change — the prior plan’s assumption (father’s Wednesday availability) has been undermined by genuinely new facts. Modification is appropriate to rework time-sharing around the new work pattern, often with offsetting weekends.

Worked example: safety concern that qualifies

Mother is arrested for DUI with the child in the car. She subsequently enters substance abuse treatment but the case is ongoing. Father petitions for modification (and concurrently for emergency relief). The substantial-material-unanticipated change is established by the arrest and admission of the underlying conduct; modification serves best interests because the existing plan cannot adequately protect the child’s safety while the situation evolves. Likely outcome: supervised time-sharing for the mother pending demonstrated rehabilitation, with a graduated return to unsupervised time-sharing tied to documented compliance.

Changes That Typically Don’t Qualify

The following are generally insufficient on their own:

• Ordinary aging of the child (going from age 5 to age 8 is not a substantial change).
• Parent dissatisfaction with the existing arrangement.
• Child saying they prefer to live with one parent (without other factors).
• Parent remarriage or cohabitation, absent specific concerns about the new partner.
• Parent obtaining a new job within reasonable proximity.
• Minor scheduling difficulties that could be resolved by cooperation.
• Child’s extracurricular schedule changes (these usually justify schedule tweaks, not modification).

If your situation fits one of these categories, the better approach is usually a stipulated modification with the other parent (an agreed change ratified by the court) rather than contested litigation that you may not win.

The Best Interests Standard

If the substantial-change threshold is met, the court evaluates the proposed modification under the 20+ best-interest factors in Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3). The most-weighted factors in modification cases tend to be:

• Each parent’s capacity and disposition to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent (gatekeeping behaviors weigh heavily).
• The continuity of the child’s home environment, school, and community.
• The capacity of each parent to provide a consistent routine.
• The moral fitness of the parents.
• The mental and physical health of the parents.
• The child’s home, school, and community record.
• The reasonable preference of the child (if of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience).
• The willingness and ability of each parent to be informed of the child’s well-being.
• Demonstrated capacity to maintain an environment for the child that is free from substance abuse.
• Capacity to communicate with and keep the other parent informed.

The court explicitly considers the totality of the circumstances. No single factor is dispositive.

Procedural Steps to Modify

A parenting plan modification proceeds as a separate post-judgment action in the original court (or wherever jurisdiction now properly lies under the UCCJEA). Key steps:

1. File a Supplemental Petition for Modification. The petition must allege specific facts establishing the substantial, material, and unanticipated change. Conclusory allegations are routinely dismissed.
2. Serve the other parent with the supplemental petition and summons. Same service rules as the original action.
3. Answer period: 20 days for the responding parent to file an answer.
4. Discovery: Document requests, interrogatories, depositions, possibly a social investigation or psychological evaluation if mental health is in question.
5. Mandatory mediation: The 11th Circuit (Miami-Dade) requires mediation before contested hearings on modification.
6. Trial: If mediation fails, the court holds an evidentiary hearing where both parents present testimony and exhibits.
7. Order: The court enters a modified parenting plan or denies the petition.

Total timeline in Miami-Dade typically runs 6 to 12 months from filing to final order in contested cases. Agreed modifications can be processed in 30-60 days.

Temporary Modifications

If immediate change is needed (typically for safety concerns), Florida allows motions for temporary modification or emergency relief. The standard for emergency relief is high — the moving party must show that the child is in imminent danger of physical or emotional harm. Examples include credible domestic violence, substance abuse impairment during time-sharing, or unilateral parental kidnapping.

Temporary modifications are intended to bridge the gap until final modification can be litigated, not to circumvent the substantial-change requirement. Routine schedule disputes do not qualify for emergency relief.

Modification vs. Enforcement

An important distinction: modification changes the parenting plan going forward. Enforcement compels compliance with the existing plan. If your former spouse isn’t following the current plan, the remedy is a motion to enforce or a motion for contempt — not a modification petition. Filing the wrong type of motion delays relief and can incur unnecessary attorney fees.

Enforcement remedies include compensatory time-sharing, attorney fee awards, fines, and in egregious cases of willful violation, modification of time-sharing or contempt findings.

Procedural Traps That Defeat Modification Petitions

Several procedural issues routinely sink otherwise meritorious modification cases. Knowing them in advance avoids wasted filings and attorney fees.

UCCJEA jurisdiction must be confirmed

Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (codified in Florida at Fla. Stat. § 61.501–.542), the original Florida court generally retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over modifications as long as either parent or the child still has significant connections to Florida. But if both parents and the child have moved out of state, Florida courts may have lost modification jurisdiction even though Florida entered the original order. Filing in the wrong state is a jurisdictional defect that voids the entire proceeding. Confirm UCCJEA jurisdiction before filing.

The petition must plead specific facts, not conclusions

Conclusory pleadings ("a substantial change has occurred") are routinely dismissed at the pleading stage. The supplemental petition must identify the specific changed facts — with dates, magnitudes, and contrast to the situation at the time of the original order. The court is testing whether the alleged facts, accepted as true, would meet the threshold. Vague pleadings fail this test before any evidence is heard.

Pre-modification compliance with the existing plan

Courts assess the petitioning parent’s own compliance with the existing parenting plan as part of the best-interests analysis. A parent seeking expanded time-sharing while consistently failing to exercise the current time-share, missing pickups, or violating the existing exchange protocols faces a credibility headwind. Documented compliance with the existing plan, by contrast, supports the petition.

Mandatory mediation in most Florida circuits

The 11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade), the 17th (Broward), the 15th (Palm Beach), and most other Florida circuits require mediation before contested modification hearings. The mediation is an opportunity to settle (often the right outcome where genuine substantial change exists and the dispute is over the specific schedule) and to demonstrate good-faith effort. Bypassing or sabotaging mandatory mediation typically results in cost-shifting attorney’s fee awards against the obstructing party.

Relocation Specifically: § 61.13001

Relocation cases are the most common modification trigger and have their own dedicated statute. Under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001, a parent who wishes to move more than 50 miles from their current residence with the child for 60 or more days must either: (a) obtain written agreement of the other parent (and any other party with time-sharing rights) and file a stipulated notice; or (b) file a petition to relocate that the court will adjudicate.

If contested, the relocating parent bears the initial burden of demonstrating that the relocation is in good faith. If met, the burden shifts to the objecting parent to demonstrate that the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interests. The statute lists 11 specific factors the court considers, including the nature of the proposed relocation, the impact on the relationship with the non-relocating parent, the feasibility of substitute time-sharing, the child’s preference (age-appropriate), and the reasons each parent supports or opposes the move.

Relocating before filing the petition is a serious procedural defect that courts treat harshly. The remedy can include compelling the child’s return, attorney’s fees, and weighting future modification analysis against the relocating parent. File first, move second.

For more detail on the relocation framework, see our Florida child relocation statute explainer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Reading

• Florida Time-Sharing Law: Fla. Stat. § 61.13 Explained
• Florida Child Relocation Laws (§ 61.13001)
• Florida Child Custody & Time-Sharing — Practice Area
• Modifying Florida Child Support and Alimony
• Co-Parenting Apps for Florida Families
• Florida Family Law Glossary — 32+ Plain-English Definitions

The information on this page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or sharing this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Pazos Law Group. Florida law and the application of statutes change over time; please consult a licensed Florida attorney about your specific situation.