Skip to content

Florida Statute § 61.13(3) — Time-sharing Factors

TL;DR. Florida Statute § 61.13(3) codifies the 20-paragraph statutory factor list Florida courts apply in determining parental responsibility, parenting plans, and time-sharing schedules. The factor list is non-exhaustive ("including, but not limited to") and includes both a friendly-parent factor at (a) ("The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship") and — most notably — an explicit anti-disparagement / litigation-protection factor at ® ("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"). The anti-disparagement factor at ® is one of the most directly PA-relevant statutory provisions in any US state.

Source: Florida Legislature canonical URL — Florida state statutes are public domain. · Fetched: 2026-06-13 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Full statutory text (subsection (3) verbatim)

§ 61.13(3) — Determination of best interests

(3) For purposes of establishing or modifying parental responsibility and creating, developing, approving, or modifying a parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent's relationship with his or her minor child and the relationship between each parent with regard to his or her minor child, the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration. 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. 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 for the purpose of a modification to the time-sharing schedule, so long as there is a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child. Determination of the best interests of the child must be made by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to:

(a) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required.

(b) The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after the litigation, including the extent to which parental responsibilities will be delegated to third parties.

© The demonstrated 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.

(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(e) The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling to effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or against relocation of either parent with a child.

(f) The moral fitness of the parents.

(g) The mental and physical health of the parents.

(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

(j) The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be informed of the circumstances of the minor child, including, but not limited to, the child's friends, teachers, medical care providers, daily activities, and favorite things.

(k) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a consistent routine for the child, such as discipline, and daily schedules for homework, meals, and bedtime.

(l) The demonstrated capacity of each parent to communicate with and keep the other parent informed of issues and activities regarding the minor child, and the willingness of each parent to adopt a unified front on all major issues when dealing with the child.

(m) Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect or evidence that a parent has or has had reasonable cause to believe that he or she or his or her minor child or children are in imminent danger of becoming victims of an act of domestic violence, regardless of whether a prior or pending action relating to those issues has been brought. If the court accepts evidence of prior or pending actions regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, the court must specifically acknowledge in writing that such evidence was considered when evaluating the best interests of the child.

(n) Evidence that either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.

(o) The particular parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent and the division of parental responsibilities before the institution of litigation and during the pending litigation, including the extent to which parenting responsibilities were undertaken by third parties.

(p) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to participate and be involved in the child's school and extracurricular activities.

(q) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to maintain an environment for the child which is free from substance abuse.

® 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.

(s) The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child's developmental needs.

(t) Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan, including the time-sharing schedule.

Why § 61.13(3) matters for parental-alienation analysis

Florida's § 61.13(3) is the most explicitly PA-aware statutory factor list in any US state. Three of its 20 paragraphs are direct PA-pattern hooks:

  • Paragraph (a) — friendly-parent factor: "The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required." Tracks the standard friendly-parent framing seen in most US states.

  • Paragraph (n) — false-allegations factor: "Evidence that either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect." Florida is among the few US states with an explicit statutory factor addressing knowingly false safeguarding allegations — directly relevant to the PA-context pattern where false abuse allegations are deployed strategically.

  • Paragraph ® — anti-disparagement / litigation-protection factor: "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." This is arguably the most directly PA-aware statutory provision in any US state's custody factors list. It explicitly directs courts to consider whether a parent insulates the child from litigation discussion, document exposure, and disparagement — the canonical alienating-conduct markers.

Florida also has the explicit paragraph (m) safeguarding clause requiring the court to "specifically acknowledge in writing that such evidence was considered" when domestic violence / abuse evidence is accepted — ensuring documented safety concerns retain primacy over the friendly-parent and anti-disparagement factors.

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

Primary source

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):