Florida does not use the word “custody” in its family law statute. Instead, parents work through parental responsibility and time-sharing, and the framework governing both changed in a meaningful way in 2023. Anyone approaching a divorce or paternity case involving children benefits from understanding not just the general rules, but which version of those rules currently applies.
This guide covers:
• The 2023 change that created a presumption of equal time-sharing
• How the presumption can be rebutted and what factors matter
• What courts require to modify an existing time-sharing schedule
• Why the specific facts of a family still drive most outcomes
At a Glance
| Concept | What It Means |
| Equal time-sharing presumption | Since July 2023, Florida courts presume a 50/50 schedule serves the child’s best interest |
| Rebutting the presumption | A parent must show by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interest |
| Best-interest factors | Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3) lists roughly 20 factors courts weigh when the presumption is contested |
| Parental responsibility | Legal decision-making authority, presumed shared unless shown to be detrimental |
| Modifying a plan | Requires a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances |
| Written findings | Courts must make specific written findings when creating or modifying a schedule |
The Presumption Shifted in 2023
For years, Florida’s time-sharing framework asked judges to weigh the same list of best-interest factors from a neutral starting point, without any built-in assumption about what the final schedule should look like. That changed with amendments effective July 1, 2023. Florida Statute 61.13 now includes a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child serves the child’s best interest, meaning a 50/50 schedule is the default a court starts from rather than one outcome among several equally weighted options.
The presumption can still be overcome, but the burden now sits with the parent arguing against an equal schedule. That parent must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that equal time-sharing does not serve the child’s best interest. This is a meaningful shift from how these cases were argued before 2023, when neither side started from a presumed baseline. Parents and attorneys working from outdated information sometimes assume the older, presumption-free standard still applies, which can shape case strategy in the wrong direction from the outset.
What It Takes to Rebut the Presumption
Overcoming the equal time-sharing presumption requires evidence tied to the specific factors listed in Florida Statute 61.13(3), which the court must evaluate and address in specific written findings whenever a schedule is contested rather than agreed upon. These factors cover a wide range of considerations, including each parent’s demonstrated ability to facilitate a close relationship between the child and the other parent, each parent’s history of involvement in the child’s daily life and decision-making, the developmental needs of the child at their particular age, and any evidence of substance abuse, domestic violence, or other conduct that could affect the child’s wellbeing.
No single factor is automatically decisive, and judges are directed to weigh the full picture of the family’s circumstances rather than apply a checklist mechanically. This is where contested cases tend to become genuinely fact-specific. A parent’s argument against equal time-sharing based on work travel, for example, carries different weight depending on how consistently that travel has actually interfered with parenting time in the past, not simply whether travel is part of the job. Building a case that speaks to these factors with specific, documented examples rather than general assertions is usually what separates a persuasive argument from a weak one. Parents navigating a contested time-sharing dispute are often better served working with an experienced Boca Raton child custody lawyer who can help identify which factors actually apply to their situation and how to support them with evidence a court will find credible.
Documentation matters more in these cases than many parents expect going in. A parent who has consistently attended school events, medical appointments, and daily routines has a stronger evidentiary basis for arguing that the existing pattern of involvement should carry weight than a parent who can only describe that involvement in general terms after the fact. Courts weighing the statutory factors are looking for a demonstrated pattern, not a stated intention, which is part of why cases built around specific dates, records, and third-party corroboration tend to hold up better than cases built around each parent’s competing narrative alone.
Modifying a Time-Sharing Schedule Later On
A finalized time-sharing schedule is not necessarily permanent, but Florida sets a deliberately high bar for changing one. A parent seeking a modification must show a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances since the original order, and the court must still find that the modification serves the child’s best interest before approving it. A minor shift, such as a small change in work hours or a short-term disagreement between parents, generally does not meet this standard on its own.
Circumstances that more commonly meet the bar include a parent relocating a significant distance, a substantial change in either parent’s ability to care for the child, or evidence of a pattern that did not exist, or was not known, at the time of the original order. Because the standard requires the change to have been unanticipated at the time of the original schedule, a circumstance that both parents could reasonably have foreseen when the plan was created is less likely to support a modification later. A parent who anticipated a future job relocation when the original schedule was negotiated, for example, will generally have a harder time arguing that the same relocation later qualifies as unanticipated.
Families considering whether their situation meets this threshold, or working through a first-time schedule under the current presumption, often start by speaking with a firm such as Lewert Law to understand how the current version of the statute applies to their specific facts before filing anything with the court.
Summary
Florida’s time-sharing framework starts from a presumption of equal time-sharing since the 2023 amendments, a real shift from the neutral, factor-only approach that came before it. Overcoming that presumption, or modifying a schedule after the fact, both require specific, documented evidence tied to the statutory factors rather than general arguments, and the outcome in any individual case still depends heavily on the particular family’s circumstances.
Key Takeaways
• Since July 2023, Florida courts presume equal time-sharing serves a child’s best interest, and the parent opposing an equal schedule carries the burden of proof.
• Roughly 20 factors under Florida Statute 61.13(3) guide contested cases, and no single factor controls the outcome on its own.
• Modifying an existing schedule requires a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances, a notably higher bar than simply preferring a different arrangement.
Understanding which version of Florida’s time-sharing law currently applies, and which specific facts are likely to matter, tends to shape a stronger case than relying on general assumptions about how these decisions get made.
Frequently Asked Questions
What changed in Florida’s time-sharing law in 2023?
Effective July 1, 2023, Florida Statute 61.13 was amended to create a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing serves a child’s best interest. Before this change, courts weighed the statutory factors without starting from any presumed schedule.
How can a parent rebut the equal time-sharing presumption?
A parent must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interest, using the roughly 20 factors listed in Florida Statute 61.13(3), which cover things like each parent’s involvement in the child’s life and any conduct affecting the child’s wellbeing.
What is required to modify a time-sharing schedule in Florida?
A parent must show a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances since the original order, and the court must find that the modification serves the child’s best interest. Minor or foreseeable changes generally do not meet this standard.
Is time-sharing the same thing as custody in Florida?
Functionally, yes. Florida law uses “time-sharing” and “parental responsibility” instead of the term “custody,” but the underlying concepts, who a child lives with and how parents share decision-making, cover the same ground.
Does Florida presume both parents should share legal decision-making?
Yes. Parental responsibility, the authority to make decisions about a child’s education, healthcare, and general welfare, is presumptively shared between both parents unless shown to be detrimental to the child.
Do courts have to explain their time-sharing decisions in writing?
Yes. Except when the parents agree to a schedule that the court approves, the court must evaluate the statutory factors and make specific written findings of fact when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule.