A Florida court recently ruled in a significant custody and relocation case involving Charlene Marie Duryea and Keith Robert Bono. The District Court of Appeal of Florida decided that Duryea could relocate to Oregon with her minor child, reversing a previous ruling that denied her request. This decision affects the custody arrangement and timesharing between the parents.
The case began when Duryea and Bono, the parents of a child born in September 2012, entered into a legal dispute over paternity, child support, and custody. The conflict escalated when Duryea sought to move with their child from Sarasota County, Florida, to Portland, Oregon. The court's ruling is crucial as it clarifies the legal standards surrounding relocation requests in custody cases.
Duryea filed a notice of intent to relocate in May 2014, which Bono opposed. The initial paternity action, case number 2013-DR-5400-NC, established paternity and child support but did not finalize the timesharing arrangement. The court later consolidated this with Duryea's relocation request in case number 2014-DR-3861-SC. A general magistrate granted Duryea's request to relocate in December 2014, which the court adopted as a final order in February 2015.
However, the situation changed over time. In the years following the relocation approval, both parents engaged in extensive litigation regarding custody and timesharing. In December 2018, the trial court issued a final judgment that denied Duryea's request to relocate again, stating that the 2015 order was temporary and that the circumstances warranted a new evaluation of the relocation request.
The District Court of Appeal reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had erred in its assessment. The court emphasized that the February 2015 order allowing Duryea to relocate was indeed a final order and not temporary as the trial court had claimed. The appellate court ruled, "The relocation will stand," confirming Duryea's right to move with her child.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Florida Statutes, specifically section 61.13001, which defines relocation and the conditions under which a parent can seek to move with a child. The appellate judges noted that the trial court's reasoning was flawed because it incorrectly assumed that a final timesharing order was necessary before a relocation request could be made.
The ruling has significant implications for future custody and relocation cases in Florida. It reinforces the idea that once a relocation request is granted by the court, it should not be re-evaluated without a formal petition to modify that order. This decision provides clarity for parents navigating similar situations, ensuring that previously granted relocation orders remain valid unless legally challenged.
As a result of this ruling, Duryea can now proceed with her plans to relocate to Oregon, which will affect the timesharing arrangement with Bono. While the court affirmed other aspects of the final judgment, including the Father's majority timesharing, the reversal of the relocation denial stands out as a key aspect of the decision.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Bono will seek to appeal this ruling. The court's decision may set a precedent for how relocation requests are handled in the future, potentially influencing other custody disputes in Florida. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could affect this ruling.