Is Florida a 50/50 Custody State?

For years, people walked into family law consultations convinced Florida was already a “50/50 custody state.” Others were equally certain it wasn’t. As of July 1, 2023, Florida’s parenting law changed in a way that makes the answer clearer, at least in the way most people mean the question.

In an episode of the Florida Family Law Podcast, host Alex Peterson, Principal Attorney and Owner of Family First Legal Group) explains how House Bill 1301 changed Florida’s time-sharing framework, what “50/50” really means under the statute, and why the practical outcome still depends on the facts of each family.

The Short Answer

In common terms, yes—Florida is now a “50/50 state,” because the law creates a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in a child’s best interests unless a parent proves otherwise.

That doesn’t mean every child custody case automatically ends in a perfect 50/50 schedule. It means the court generally starts from that position, and a parent who wants something different must be prepared to show why equal time-sharing would not be in the child’s best interests.

What The Law Says Now

Alex reads the key concept directly from the updated statute: unless the parties agree to a different schedule and the court approves it, the court begins with a rebuttable presumption of equal time-sharing. To rebut that presumption, a party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (which means “more likely than not”), that equal time-sharing is not in the child’s best interests. The court must also evaluate the statutory best-interest factors and make specific written findings when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule.

Alex’s practical take is that many judges were already moving in this direction for years, often treating parents as equally important unless the evidence showed otherwise. The difference now is that the statute more clearly requires the court to start from that equal-time premise (unless the presumption is rebutted or the parents agree to another schedule).

Why The Change May Feel Bigger Than It Is

Alex makes a point that’s worth hearing clearly: the list of best-interest factors the court considers did not fundamentally change. The court still must evaluate the child’s best interests, and the outcome still depends on evidence.

So while the “starting point” is now written into the statute, families should not assume the label “50/50” overrides issues like a child’s needs, safety concerns, logistics, history of involvement, or other best-interest considerations that come up in real cases.

A Separate Change That May Matter Even More: Modifying Existing Parenting Plans

Alex also highlights a second statutory change that could have a meaningful impact for parents seeking modifications of an existing parenting plan.

“Unanticipated” Was Removed From The Modification Standard

Previously, modifying a parenting plan generally required a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances. The updated language removes “unanticipated,” meaning the focus is now on whether the change is substantial and material, without the extra fight over whether it was foreseeable.

Alex explains why that matters: parenting plans created when children were very young can become less workable as schedules, school demands, and activities evolve. Under the prior wording, parents sometimes faced arguments like “you should have expected the kids would get older,” which could become a barrier to modification. With “unanticipated” removed, that particular obstacle is reduced.

The 50-Mile Provision

Alex also discusses a provision aimed at long-distance parenting plans: if parents were living more than 50 miles apart when the last time-sharing order was entered, and a parent later moves to within 50 miles of the other parent, that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances, so long as modifying the schedule is in the child’s best interests.

Practically, this can matter for parents who want to relocate closer to be more involved, but worried that moving wouldn’t actually change their time-sharing. Alex notes it may also prompt new disputes and litigation, because people will test the boundaries of what qualifies and how quickly a modification can be sought.

What Parents Should Take From This

Alex’s overall message is balanced: Florida’s law now clearly favors a starting point of equal time-sharing, but it remains a rebuttable presumption, and the best-interests analysis still controls the final outcome.

He also suggests that the changes may open doors for parents living under older parenting plans that no longer fit their children’s lives or the parents’ circumstances.

About Family First Legal Group

Family First Legal Group represents clients across Southwest Florida in divorce and custody matters, including cases concerning parenting plans, visitation rights, relocation, and time-sharing disputes.