Florida Time-Sharing Law: Fla. Stat. § 61.13 Explained (2026)

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

Fla. Stat. § 61.13 is the central statute governing parenting plans, time-sharing, and parental responsibility in Florida divorce and paternity cases. The 2023 amendments (SB 1416) created a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing serves the child’s best interests. This guide explains what the statute requires, how the 20 best-interests factors are applied, and what changes after a final judgment.

What § 61.13 Governs

Fla. Stat. § 61.13 is one of the most heavily relied-upon statutes in Florida family law. It defines and regulates:

• Parental responsibility — decision-making authority over the child’s welfare (education, healthcare, religion, etc.).
• Time-sharing — the schedule that allocates the child’s time between parents.
• Parenting plans — the written document that codifies responsibility, time-sharing, communication, and decision protocols.
• The best-interests standard — the framework Florida courts apply to all child-related determinations.
• Modification — the substantial-change-of-circumstances standard for changing time-sharing or parental responsibility post-judgment.
• Enforcement — what happens when a parent violates the parenting plan or interferes with the other parent’s time-sharing.

The statute applies in dissolution-of-marriage cases under chapter 61, in paternity cases under chapter 742 (which incorporates § 61.13 by reference), and in modification proceedings of any prior child-related order.

The 2023 Reform: Presumption of Equal Time-Sharing (SB 1416)

Effective July 1, 2023, Senate Bill 1416 amended Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(c)(1) to create a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the best interests of the minor child. This was a significant doctrinal shift. Before 2023, Florida courts applied a pure best-interests inquiry with no thumb on the scale toward either parent. After 2023, the starting point is 50/50 and the burden falls on the parent seeking a different arrangement to rebut the presumption.

How the presumption works in practice

The presumption operates as a starting point, not a ceiling. The statute reads, in relevant part: “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, the contesting parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interests, applying the 20 best-interests factors in § 61.13(3).

What can rebut the presumption

Common grounds for rebuttal include: documented history of domestic violence (factor 4), parental incapacity (factor 14), substantial geographic distance making equal time-sharing impractical (factor 9), or the child’s established routines and developmental needs (factor 2). The presumption is not rebutted simply because one parent has historically been the primary caregiver — the court evaluates current capacity and future best interests, not historical division of duties alone.

What does NOT apply

The equal time-sharing presumption does not apply where: (1) a court has found a parent unfit, (2) one parent has been convicted of certain offenses against the child or the other parent, or (3) the parents have already agreed on a different schedule that the court has approved.

The 20 Best-Interests Factors (§ 61.13(3))

Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3) enumerates 20 factors the court must consider when establishing or modifying a parenting plan. The court is required to make specific written findings on each applicable factor:

1. The capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship with the other parent.
2. The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after the litigation.
3. The capacity and disposition of each parent to determine, consider, and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of the parent.
4. The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
5. The geographic viability of the parenting plan, including travel time for the child.
6. The moral fitness of the parents.
7. The mental and physical health of the parents.
8. The home, school, and community record of the child.
9. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child sufficiently intelligent, understanding, and experienced.
10. The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be informed of the circumstances of the minor child.
11. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a consistent routine for the child.
12. The demonstrated capacity of each parent to communicate with and keep the other parent informed of issues and activities regarding the minor child.
13. Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.
14. Evidence that any party has knowingly provided false information regarding any prior or pending action involving domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.
15. The particular parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent and the division of parental responsibilities before the institution of litigation.
16. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to participate and be involved in the child’s school and extracurricular activities.
17. The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to maintain an environment for the child which is free from substance abuse.
18. The capacity and disposition of each parent to protect the child from the ongoing litigation as demonstrated by not discussing the litigation with the child, not sharing documents or electronic media related to the litigation with the child, and refraining from disparaging comments about the other parent to the child.
19. The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s developmental needs.
20. Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan.

No single factor is dispositive. Florida appellate courts have repeatedly held that the trial court must make specific findings on each applicable factor; failure to do so is reversible error. See, e.g., Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Vaughan v. Vaughan, 173 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Parental Responsibility: Shared vs. Sole

Parental responsibility — the authority to make major decisions about the child’s welfare — is separate from time-sharing. Florida presumptively orders shared parental responsibility under § 61.13(2)(c)(2), meaning both parents must confer and agree on major decisions (school choice, non-emergency medical care, religious upbringing).

The court may order sole parental responsibility only where shared responsibility would be detrimental to the child. The standard is high; conviction of certain offenses (domestic violence misdemeanors of the first degree or any felony of the third degree or higher involving domestic violence) creates a presumption of detriment under § 61.13(2)(c)(2).

Courts can also order shared parental responsibility with ultimate decision-making authority on specific issues (e.g., shared responsibility generally, but Mother has ultimate authority on educational decisions). This middle path is common where parents struggle to agree on a particular subject but otherwise function as co-parents.

What a Parenting Plan Must Contain

Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(b) requires every parenting plan to address, at a minimum:

• A description of how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child.
• The time-sharing schedule arrangements that specify the time the minor child will spend with each parent.
• A designation of who will be responsible for: (a) any and all forms of healthcare; (b) school-related matters; (c) extracurricular activities.
• The methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the child.

Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.995 prescribes the standard Family Law Form 12.995(a) for parenting plans. Courts generally accept this form but parents can submit customized plans addressing additional matters (holiday schedules, transportation, virtual visitation, dispute-resolution mechanisms, right of first refusal, etc.).

Modifying a Parenting Plan

Once a parenting plan is incorporated into a final judgment, modification requires more than a preference for change. The party seeking modification must prove:

1. A substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order, AND
2. That modification is in the best interests of the child applying the 20 factors.

The substantial-change standard is intentionally high to promote stability for children. The Florida Supreme Court articulated this rule in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005), and it has been applied across modification contexts. Routine life changes — a new job, a new partner, a new school year — generally do not meet the standard. Substantial relocation, parental unfitness, or material non-cooperation with the existing plan can.

For a deeper discussion of the modification process, see our companion guide: Modifying a Florida Parenting Plan.

Domestic Violence and § 61.13

Florida courts treat domestic violence as a substantial consideration in both initial determinations and modifications. § 61.13(2)(c)(2) provides that evidence of domestic violence or child abuse creates a presumption of detriment to the child and may justify denial of shared parental responsibility. Convictions for certain offenses against a child or co-parent further strengthen this presumption.

Parents experiencing domestic violence should also consider Fla. Stat. § 741.30 (injunctions for protection against domestic violence), which can be sought independently of and concurrently with a dissolution or paternity action. An injunction can address temporary time-sharing and decision-making while the broader case proceeds.

Enforcement and Non-Compliance

When a parent fails to comply with a parenting plan — missing exchanges, denying time-sharing, refusing to communicate — the aggrieved parent has several remedies under § 61.13(4):

• Civil contempt proceedings, with possible fines, fees, and incarceration for willful violation.
• Compensatory time-sharing to make up for lost time.
• Modification of the parenting plan where the non-compliance evidences a substantial change.
• Attorney’s fees and costs awarded to the prevailing parent.
• Community service requirements as a sanction.
• Parenting class requirements.

How Time-Sharing Affects Child Support

The time-sharing percentage drives the child-support calculation under Fla. Stat. § 61.30. When a parent has the child for 20% or more of the overnights in a year (73+ overnights), Florida applies the “gross-up” method that adjusts the obligation based on both parents’ share of overnights. Equal time-sharing (182.5 overnights each) produces a meaningfully different calculation than a primary/secondary split.

Pazos Law Group offers a free Florida Child Support Calculator that incorporates time-sharing percentages and the post-2023 statutory framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Reading

• Florida Child Custody & Time-Sharing — Practice Area
• Modifying a Florida Parenting Plan: When Courts Allow It
• Florida Child Relocation: 50-Mile Rule & § 61.13001
• Free Florida Child Support Calculator
• Florida Family Law Glossary

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.