On the other hand, grandparents are all too often these days called upon to raise their grandchildren. In some of these cases, it may be advisable or even necessary for the Grandparent to obtain legal guardianship status on a temporary basis. This is relatively easily accomplished in Dependency Court.

Both parents are considered to have equal rights when it comes to sharing the major life decisions that affect the children. That is the basis of our concept of “Shared Parental Responsibility”. Therefore, it only makes sense that one parent cannot simply move hundreds or thousands of miles away with the children without the consent of the other parent. After all, such a move will undoubtedly impact the other parent’s relationship with the children. How could it not? So it should come as no surprise to discover that this post-dissolution/post-paternity issue is a highly contested one. It’s very difficult for parents to agree on a compromise to this situation. One parent has a legitimate desire to move to take advantage of what is perceived to be an opportunity of a lifetime. The other parent has a legitimate desire not to lose the regular contact with the children that they had previously enjoyed and substitute in its place a schedule of longer contact periods sandwiched between long periods of separation.

Many clients come to our office to hire my services as a certified family mediator. I call this type of conflict resolution “direct mediation”. Neither party has an attorney. Usually the couple has made a decision that they want to “avoid lawyers and litigation” and settle their differences amicably. This is an admirable goal, and it bodes well for the family that the two parties have made a joint decision to avoid the litigation process, thereby avoiding the relationship destruction it so often causes.

In an initial joint meeting with the mediator, the parties get a checklist of the kinds of documents that need to be gathered for the parties to be able to ensure that they are considering all of the pieces of the family puzzle, and that nothing important to the process is being overlooked. Once the parties have gathered all of the information and provided it to the mediator, and the mediator has an opportunity to analyze the information and formulate some options for the parties to consider, the parties meet again with the mediator to begin the mediated negotiation process.

There are two different reasons that grandparents request our assistance. In the first case, sometimes when a parent dies, that parent’s parents are being denied visitation with their grandchildren by their former son or daughter-in-law. There could also be instances where there is such estrangement between grandparents and their own adult child that they are not being permitted contact with their grandchildren. Unfortunately, the law cannot help you. Florida once had a statute that provided for grandparent visitation, but the statute was declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court, who held that the statute violated parents’ rights to decide what is in the best interest of their own children.

On the other hand, grandparents are all too often these days called upon to raise their grandchildren. In some of these cases, it may be advisable or even necessary for the Grandparent to obtain legal guardianship status on a temporary basis. This is relatively easily accomplished in Dependency Court.

Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), titled “Parental relocation with a child,” establishes the procedures involved in the relocation of a child, whether relocation is sought after agreement between the parties or alternatively contested by one party. In the case of a contested relocation, the Legislature has stated that “[n]o presumption shall arise in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person.” § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). Instead, section 61.13001(8) states:

The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proof if an objection is filed and must then initiate a proceeding seeking court permission for relocation. The initial burden is on the parent or person wishing to relocate to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. If that burden of proof is met, the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent or other person to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

In addition to the burden that the parties must meet, the statute outlines several factors a trial court must consider before reaching a decision on a parent’s request for permanent relocation. Section 61.13001(7) provides that the court shall evaluate:

(a) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate with the child and with the nonrelocating parent, other persons, siblings, half-siblings, and other significant persons in the child’s life.

(b) The age and developmental stage of the child, the needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.

(c) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent or other person and the child through substitute arrangements that take into consideration the logistics of contact, access, visitation, and time-sharing, as well as the financial circumstances of the parties; whether those factors are sufficient to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent or other person; and the likelihood of compliance with the substitute arrangements by the relocating parent once he or she is out of the jurisdiction of the court.

(d) The child’s preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.

(e) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent seeking the relocation and the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefits or educational opportunities.

(f) The reasons of each parent or other person for seeking or opposing the relocation.

(g) The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent or other person and whether or not the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the parent or other person seeking relocation of the child.

(h) That the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the parent or other person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and marital property and marital debt obligations.

(i) The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent or objecting other person if the relocation occurs.

(j) A history of substance abuse or domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or which meets the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d) by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.

(k) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in s. 61.13.

A “best interests determination” in petitions for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.

MORE TO COME