Orta v. Suarez
66 So. 3d 988
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Orta appeals final judgment denying relocation to California with her child.
- Parties planned California move so Orta could practice dentistry without re‑training.
- Post‑nuptial agreement waived spousal support and share in separate property.
- Suarez reneged on move to California after Orta’s pregnancy, stranding her in Florida.
- Orta sought relocation after obtaining a California dental job offer; relocation was opposed by Suarez.
- Trial court found relocation in child’s best interests but ultimately denied it; appellate court reverses and remands for relocation with parenting plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was relocation properly supported by §61.13001(7) factors? | Orta met best‑interest burden under 61.13001(7). | Suarez argued relocation not in child’s best interest. | Yes; relocation should have been granted. |
| Who bears the relocation burden of proof? | Orta bears initial burden; relocation justifies moving. | Suarez contends relocation not in child’s best interest. | Orta bore initial burden; burden shifted to Suarez to show not in child’s best interest. |
| Did trial court credibly assess parental fitness and history relevant to relocation? | Orta demonstrated consistent caregiving and prioritization of child. | Suarez portrayed as devoted father with concerns about Orta. | Court erred in crediting Suarez; credibility findings support relocation. |
| Did pre‑litigation parenting arrangement support Orta’s relocation? | Orta was pre‑litigation primary caregiver; relocation preserves child’s welfare. | Equity not dispositive; focus on best interests. | Pre‑litigation caregiving favors relocation. |
| Should appellate court remand with a new parenting plan after relocation? | Relocation approved; require plan reflecting new arrangement. | Remand not necessary if denial stands. | Remand for relocation and parenting plan consistent with best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Hector, 740 So.2d 1153 (Fla.3d DCA 1998) (preserve continuity of care and pre-litigation arrangements in best interests)
- Miller v. Miller, 992 So.2d 346 (Fla.3d DCA 2008) (no reliance on relocation stress alone; consider best interests)
- Crombie v. Williams, 51 So.3d 559 (Fla.3d DCA 2010) (acknowledges limited standard of review in relocation orders)
- Rumph v. V.D., 667 So.2d 998 (Fla.3d DCA 1996) (principles for stability and continuity in custody arrangements)
- Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So.2d 1053 (Fla.4th DCA 2005) (relocation factors and timing considerations)
- Beharry v. Drake, 52 So.3d 790 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (acknowledges standard of review and relocation analysis)