Myths That Can Derail Your Case
Misinformation about how Florida courts handle custody -- properly called time-sharing and parental responsibility -- is widespread. Parents who make strategic decisions based on myths rather than the actual law can damage their cases and, more importantly, their relationships with their children.
Here are six of the most common myths, along with the legal reality under current Florida law.
Myth 1: Mothers Always Get Custody
This is perhaps the most persistent myth in family law. Decades ago, many states applied a "tender years doctrine" that presumed young children belonged with their mothers. Florida does not follow this presumption and has not for many years.
Under Florida Statute 61.13(3), the court must determine time-sharing based on the best interests of the child, evaluating twenty specific statutory factors. Gender is not one of them. The statute explicitly states that the court shall order shared parental responsibility and shall not give any preference to the mother or the father.
In practice, Florida courts regularly award equal or majority time-sharing to fathers when the evidence supports that arrangement. The outcome depends on the facts -- which parent has been the primary caregiver, which parent facilitates the child's relationship with the other parent, the stability of each home, and numerous other considerations.
Myth 2: The Parent Who Earns More Gets More Time
Income and time-sharing are separate issues under Florida law. A parent's higher income does not translate to more time with the child, nor does a lower income disqualify a parent from equal time-sharing.
Income is relevant to child support calculations under Fla. Stat. 61.30, but the time-sharing determination is governed by the best-interest factors in Fla. Stat. 61.13(3). A parent who earns less may still provide a stable, nurturing environment that warrants equal or majority time-sharing.
The court looks at demonstrated parenting ability, not financial resources, when crafting a time-sharing schedule. Financial disparities are addressed through child support and, in some cases, alimony -- not by reducing a parent's time with their child.
Myth 3: Florida Automatically Awards 50/50 Time-Sharing
This myth gained significant traction after the passage of House Bill 1301, which took effect on July 1, 2023. HB 1301 amended Fla. Stat. 61.13 to create a statutory presumption that equal time-sharing is in the best interests of the child.
However, a presumption is not a guarantee. The presumption can be rebutted by evidence that equal time-sharing would not serve the child's best interests. Factors that may overcome the presumption include:
- Geographic distance between the parents' homes that makes equal time-sharing impractical for school-age children
- A parent's work schedule that consistently prevents meaningful involvement during their time-sharing periods
- History of domestic violence, substance abuse, or neglect
- The child's established routine and needs, particularly for very young children
- A parent's demonstrated inability or unwillingness to cooperate with the other parent
The presumption shifts the starting point of the analysis to 50/50, but the court retains full authority to deviate based on the evidence presented. Treating the presumption as automatic and failing to present evidence about why a different arrangement serves the child can be a serious strategic error.
Myth 4: Child Support and Time-Sharing Are Interchangeable
Some parents believe that paying child support entitles them to more time-sharing, or that receiving child support requires giving up time. These concepts are legally distinct.
Child support is a financial obligation calculated under the Income Shares Model in Fla. Stat. 61.30. It is based primarily on each parent's net income and the number of overnights each parent exercises. While the number of overnights does affect the child support calculation, the time-sharing schedule is determined first based on the child's best interests -- not reverse-engineered to achieve a desired support amount.
A parent cannot withhold time-sharing because the other parent is behind on child support, and a parent cannot refuse to pay support because they are denied time-sharing. Each obligation is independently enforceable through contempt proceedings.
Myth 5: Older Children Choose Where They Live
Florida law does consider the reasonable preference of the child, but it is only one of twenty factors under Fla. Stat. 61.13(3). A child's stated preference is not determinative, regardless of age.
There is no magic age at which a child can "decide" where to live. The court evaluates whether the child is of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a meaningful preference. Even when the court considers a child's wishes, it weighs those wishes against all other relevant factors.
Allowing a child to believe they have the power to choose can place inappropriate pressure on them and may actually work against the parent who encourages it. Courts view a parent who pressures a child to express a preference -- or who uses the child as a messenger -- unfavorably.
Myth 6: You Can Skip the Parenting Plan
Every Florida case involving minor children requires a parenting plan approved by the court. This is not optional. Under Fla. Stat. 61.13(2)(b), the parenting plan must include, at minimum, a detailed time-sharing schedule, an allocation of decision-making authority, and provisions for communication between the child and each parent.
If the parents do not submit an agreed parenting plan, the court will impose one after a hearing. Having no plan is not an option -- and going to court without a well-considered proposed plan puts you at a significant disadvantage.
Building Your Case on Facts, Not Myths
Family law decisions should be driven by evidence and an accurate understanding of the current statutory framework. If you are facing a time-sharing dispute in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, working with an attorney who knows how these factors play out in Duval, Clay, and Nassau County courtrooms can help you build a case grounded in reality rather than assumptions.
This article provides general information about Florida family law and does not constitute legal advice. Every case involves unique facts that may affect the applicable legal analysis.