FAMILY LAW GUIDE:
OVERCOMING THE EQUAL TIMESHARING PRESUMPTION

When 50/50 Is Not Best for the Child: Overcoming Florida’s Equal Time-Sharing Presumption

Florida law now gives equal time-sharing a significant head start. It does not give equal time-sharing a guaranteed finish.

Under section 61.13, Florida Statutes, a court generally begins with a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in a minor child’s best interests. A parent seeking a different schedule must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that equal time-sharing is not best for the particular child involved.

That standard matters. The court does not begin the case on a blank sheet of paper, and a parent cannot overcome the presumption merely by saying that 50/50 feels inconvenient, unfair, or inconsistent with the family’s past arrangements. The parent needs admissible evidence tied to the child’s safety, stability, development, schooling, medical needs, emotional welfare, or other statutory best-interest factors.

The presumption is nevertheless rebuttable. Florida judges can—and do—order majority time-sharing, limited time-sharing, supervised contact, long-distance schedules, school-week schedules, or other unequal arrangements when the evidence supports them.

Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represents parents in contested Florida child custody and time-sharing cases, including divorces, paternity proceedings, modifications, relocation disputes, domestic violence cases, and litigation involving substance abuse, mental-health concerns, parental alienation, and supervised time-sharing.

The Short Answer

A parent overcomes Florida’s equal time-sharing presumption by proving that a different schedule is more likely than not to serve the child’s best interests.

The court must evaluate the statutory factors in section 61.13(3), including each parent’s ability to provide stability, meet the child’s needs, maintain a consistent routine, support the child’s relationship with the other parent, protect the child from litigation, remain free from substance abuse, and make the proposed schedule work geographically.

In a contested case, the court must also make specific written findings explaining its decision. The quality of the evidence and the requested alternative parenting plan therefore matter as much as the allegations.

What Florida’s Equal Time-Sharing Presumption Actually Means

Section 61.13 expresses Florida’s policy that children should have frequent and continuing contact with both parents and that parents should share the responsibilities and joys of raising their children. Unless the statute provides otherwise or the parents reach an agreement approved by the court, equal time-sharing is presumed to be in the child’s best interests.

The presumption changes the starting point. It does not replace the best-interest analysis.

“Rebuttable” means the court must begin with the presumption but may reach a different result when the evidence justifies it. “Preponderance of the evidence” means more likely than not. It is a lower burden than clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A parent does not necessarily have to prove that the other parent is unfit. The parent must prove that equal time-sharing is not best for this child under this family’s actual circumstances.

That distinction is critical. A capable and loving parent may still receive less than half of the overnights when equal time-sharing is geographically unworkable, incompatible with the child’s needs, destabilizing to the child, or otherwise contrary to the statutory factors.

Equal Time-Sharing and Shared Parental Responsibility Are Different Issues

Time-sharing concerns when the child is with each parent. Parental responsibility concerns who makes major decisions involving education, health care, mental-health treatment, and other important areas of the child’s welfare.

A court can order shared parental responsibility while awarding one parent a majority of the overnights. It can also give one parent ultimate decision-making authority over a particular subject while maintaining substantial time-sharing with both parents.

When shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, the court may order sole parental responsibility. Florida law creates additional presumptions involving certain domestic violence convictions, conduct meeting specified child-protection criteria, and particular sexual offenses.

Those provisions can affect decision-making authority and, in serious cases, time-sharing itself. They should not be confused with the general presumption favoring equal time-sharing.

The Court Must Decide What Works for the Particular Child

A successful challenge to 50/50 time-sharing normally begins with a simple but demanding question:

Can this child safely, consistently, and successfully live under the proposed equal schedule?

The answer must come from evidence—not labels, assumptions, or hostility between the parents. The strongest cases explain how the proposed schedule would affect the child’s daily life and why a specific alternative would work better.

Florida’s best-interest factors provide several potential avenues for rebutting the presumption.

Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Neglect, and Safety Risks

Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, abandonment, or neglect can be among the strongest grounds for rejecting equal time-sharing.

A parent does not always need a prior injunction, arrest, criminal conviction, or separate child-protection case before the family court may consider the evidence. Section 61.13 requires courts to consider qualifying safety evidence even when no separate action was filed or remains pending.

The court may consider violence directed at the child, violence directed at the other parent, threats, stalking, coercive conduct, unsafe discipline, exposure of the child to violent incidents, and a parent’s reasonable belief that the parent or child faced imminent danger.

A qualifying domestic violence conviction creates a separate rebuttable presumption that shared parental responsibility is detrimental to the child. If that presumption is not rebutted, the consequences may extend beyond an unequal schedule.

Evidence in these cases may include law-enforcement reports, body-camera recordings, photographs, medical records, injunction orders, authenticated messages, eyewitness testimony, admissions, criminal records, and testimony showing the child’s exposure or reaction.

Domestic violence allegations also require careful defense. A court must consider evidence that a parent knowingly gave false information concerning domestic violence, sexual violence, abuse, abandonment, or neglect. Unsupported exaggeration can damage credibility and become part of the best-interest analysis.

Parents confronting genuine safety issues—or defending against strategic allegations—should understand the relationship between parenting litigation and Florida domestic violence injunction proceedings.

Substance Abuse and Impaired Parenting

Section 61.13 directs courts to evaluate each parent’s ability to maintain an environment free from substance abuse.

The relevant question is usually not whether a parent has ever consumed alcohol, used a controlled substance, relapsed, or received treatment. The question is whether substance use presently affects judgment, supervision, transportation, consistency, safety, or the child’s welfare.

Evidence may include:

• Alcohol or drug testing results;

• Missed, diluted, or refused tests;

• Driving incidents;

• Criminal records;

• Treatment and discharge records;

• Prescription histories where lawfully obtained;

• Witness observations;

• Messages, photographs, or videos;

• Missed parenting time;

• Unexplained absences;

• Unsafe people or substances in the home; and

• A documented connection between impairment and parenting failures.

The defense may include reliable negative testing, treatment compliance, sustained recovery, testimony from appropriate professionals, stable employment, safe housing, consistent parenting, and evidence separating past conduct from present risk.

Florida law also contains a specific rule for parents living in recovery residences. A parenting plan generally may not require a child to visit a parent in a recovery residence between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless the court makes a specific best-interest finding. Time-sharing at such a residence cannot be ordered if another resident is currently required to register as a sexual predator or sexual offender.

Our detailed discussion of substance abuse in Florida family law cases addresses testing, treatment, allegations, defenses, and child-focused remedies.

Mental or Physical Health That Affects Parenting

Florida courts consider each parent’s mental and physical health, but a diagnosis by itself does not decide a parenting case.

Depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, attention disorders, or other conditions do not automatically make a parent unsafe. Many parents manage health conditions responsibly and provide excellent care. The court should focus on functioning, insight, treatment compliance, stability, judgment, and the condition’s actual effect on the child.

A mental-health issue becomes more significant when it contributes to dangerous conduct, erratic behavior, delusions involving the child, suicidal threats, uncontrolled anger, refusal to obtain necessary treatment, inability to maintain routines, or repeated parenting failures.

The same principle applies to physical health. A limitation matters when it affects the parent’s ability to supervise, transport, communicate, or meet the child’s needs—not simply because the condition exists.

Learn more about the evidence and defenses involved in Florida family law cases involving mental-health issues.

Distance, School, Transportation, and Geographic Reality

A mathematically equal schedule may be practically impossible.

Florida law requires the court to consider the geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention to school-age children and the travel required for exchanges. The court may examine:

• The distance between the homes;

• School boundaries and registration;

• Morning travel times;

• Attendance and tardiness;

• Transportation reliability;

• Work schedules;

• After-school activities;

• Medical appointments;

• The frequency and location of exchanges; and

• Whether the schedule deprives the child of reasonable rest or participation in the child’s community.

A parent opposing 50/50 should do more than complain that the other parent lives too far away. The better presentation uses maps, school schedules, travel calculations, work records, attendance evidence, and a workable alternative.

If a parent proposes a qualifying move, Florida’s parental relocation law may impose additional procedural and evidentiary requirements. A parent should not relocate with a child first and expect to repair the legal consequences later.

Stability, Continuity, and the Child’s Developmental Needs

The court must consider the length of time the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

This factor may support an unequal schedule when equal time-sharing would substantially disrupt a successful school arrangement, treatment program, therapy schedule, medical routine, special-needs plan, or other important source of stability.

Age and development matter. An arrangement that works for a teenager may not work for an infant. A schedule suitable for a healthy child may not meet the needs of a child with autism, significant anxiety, developmental delays, complex medical needs, or an individualized education plan.

The parent’s evidence should identify the child’s actual needs and explain why the requested schedule addresses them. General claims that a child “needs stability” are less persuasive than school records, treatment schedules, credible testimony, and a detailed proposed parenting plan.

The Parents’ Actual Division of Parenting Work

Florida law directs judges to consider the parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent before and during the litigation. Courts may examine who handled school communication, medical care, therapy, homework, activities, discipline, meals, bedtime, transportation, and emergency decisions.

The court may also consider the extent to which a parent expects to delegate responsibilities to relatives, partners, nannies, or other third parties.

Using appropriate childcare is not parental misconduct. A working parent is not automatically entitled to less time because childcare is necessary. The issue is whether the proposed schedule reflects the child’s needs and each parent’s actual ability to exercise the time requested.

A parent who has historically performed little direct care may still seek equal time-sharing, but promises about future involvement will be tested against conduct, availability, knowledge of the child, and the credibility of the proposed plan.

Chronic Instability and Failure to Provide a Consistent Routine

Housing instability, repeated school changes, unreliable transportation, unexplained absences, missed medical care, untreated educational issues, dangerous household members, and persistent failure to exercise scheduled time-sharing may support an unequal arrangement.

Courts also consider whether each parent can maintain consistent expectations involving homework, meals, discipline, sleep, hygiene, medication, and school attendance.

An isolated mistake usually does not decide the case. A documented pattern may.

The most persuasive evidence shows both the problem and its effect on the child. A court is more likely to act on repeated school tardiness, missed medication, or anxiety surrounding exchanges than on generalized testimony that the other household is “chaotic.”

Co-Parenting Failure, Interference, and Parental Alienation

Florida law expects each parent to support a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, honor the parenting schedule, communicate important information, and protect the child from the litigation.

Conduct that may weigh against equal time-sharing includes:

• Repeatedly withholding the child without proper cause;

• Blocking calls or access to information;

• Concealing school or medical events;

• Involving the child in adult disputes;

• Showing the child pleadings, messages, or financial records;

• Disparaging the other parent to the child;

• Pressuring the child to reject a parent;

• Manufacturing scheduling conflicts; and

• Refusing reasonable communication necessary for the child’s care.

Not every strained parent-child relationship is alienation. Children may resist contact because of abuse, frightening behavior, broken promises, untreated addiction, poor parenting, or conflict created by both adults. Courts must distinguish manipulation from justified estrangement.

Serious cases may require a guardian ad litem, social investigation, forensic psychological evaluation, reunification professional, or other qualified assistance. Our pages on parental alienation in Florida and experts and professionals in Florida family law cases discuss these issues in greater detail.

The Child’s Reasonable Preference

Florida does not have a fixed age at which a child may choose the parenting schedule.

The court may consider a child’s reasonable preference if the judge determines that the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express one. The older and more mature the child, the more practical importance the preference may carry, but the child does not control the result.

In Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the court recognized that a sufficiently mature child’s preference may receive weight without becoming the sole deciding factor.

Parents should not place children in the middle, rehearse testimony, or promise that the child can select a household. Florida procedure generally requires court approval before a child is brought to court to testify. A neutral professional may sometimes provide a safer and more reliable way to address the child’s experience.

Criminal Conduct, Sexual Offenses, and Dangerous Associations

Criminal conduct may rebut equal time-sharing when it bears on safety, judgment, supervision, stability, or the child’s environment.

The nature of the conduct matters. A remote offense unrelated to parenting is different from domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, impaired driving with the child, sexual misconduct, trafficking, weapons offenses, or conduct exposing the child to dangerous people.

Section 61.13 establishes a separate rebuttable presumption against granting time-sharing after certain enumerated sexual offenses involving an underage victim. Rebuttal requires specific written findings that the parent presents no significant risk of harm and that time-sharing is in the child’s best interests.

A court may also consider whether someone living in or frequently present at a parent’s home presents a demonstrated safety risk.

An Agreement Is a Statutory Path Around the Presumption

The equal time-sharing presumption does not require parents to negotiate from a rigid 50/50 schedule. Section 61.13 expressly recognizes court-approved agreements.

Parents may agree to a majority schedule, school-week arrangement, extended-weekend plan, long-distance schedule, seasonal division, or another structure that serves their child. The court must still approve the parenting plan, but the statute’s requirement for specific contested findings does not apply in the same manner to an agreed schedule approved by the court.

A carefully drafted agreement should address holidays, school breaks, transportation, decision-making, travel, communication, extracurricular activities, medical care, exchanges, and methods for resolving future disputes. Vague agreements frequently become expensive enforcement cases.

What Florida Appellate Decisions Teach About the Presumption

The recent appellate cases do not create a short list of automatic exceptions. They show how the presumption operates and what a trial court must do to depart from it.

Detailed findings can support an unequal schedule

In Campbell v. Jara, 392 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), the Second District upheld a parenting plan that gave the mother more time than the father. The trial court made detailed findings explaining why the schedule served the child’s best interests. The decision demonstrates that the presumption does not require an equal result when the evidence and written findings support another arrangement.

A substantial restriction can survive appellate review

In Malek v. Malek, 414 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the Third District affirmed an order limiting the father to daytime time-sharing on alternating Saturdays. The trial court addressed the statutory factors, and competent, substantial evidence supported the result. The case confirms that the equal time-sharing presumption is genuinely rebuttable—even when the resulting schedule is far from equal.

Domestic violence cannot be ignored

In Wallace v. Wallace, 418 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), the Fourth District reversed an equal time-sharing and shared-parental-responsibility arrangement because the trial court failed to address a domestic violence conviction and the corresponding statutory presumption. A court cannot simply announce that 50/50 is fair while bypassing mandatory safety provisions.

Findings and due process remain essential

In Keck v. Fortier, 414 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), the Fifth District reversed aspects of a parenting ruling because the judgment lacked the required best-interest findings. The court also found a due-process problem when relief was granted that had not been properly requested.

The lesson is straightforward: the evidence must support the result, the pleadings must give fair notice of the relief sought, and the written judgment must show that the judge performed the statutory analysis.

Initial Parenting Cases and Modification Cases Are Not the Same

In an initial divorce or paternity case, the court determines the parenting plan under the best-interest factors and the equal time-sharing presumption.

A parent seeking to change an existing final parenting plan faces an additional threshold. Section 61.13 requires proof of a substantial and material change in circumstances and proof that the requested modification is in the child’s best interests.

The equal time-sharing presumption does not automatically reopen an older unequal parenting plan. Nor does a parent obtain a modification merely because the law changed after the existing order was entered.

A modification case should identify what materially changed after the prior order, why the change affects the child, and why the proposed new schedule is better. Parents considering this relief should review the requirements for modifying a Florida parenting plan.

Building the Evidence to Overcome 50/50

The strongest litigation strategy is organized around the statutory factors and the requested remedy.

A parent should be prepared to establish:

• What the child’s current life looks like;

• What equal time-sharing would require;

• Which specific problems the schedule would create;

• How those problems affect the child;

• Which statutory factors support a different result;

• What evidence proves each point; and

• Why the proposed alternative is practical and child-focused.

Useful evidence may include school attendance records, grades, teacher communications, medical records, therapy schedules, testing results, work and travel records, calendars, parenting-app messages, emails, photographs, recordings lawfully obtained, police records, injunction records, childcare records, transportation evidence, and testimony from people with firsthand knowledge.

Evidence must still be authenticated and admissible. A screenshot without context, a therapist’s letter containing hearsay, or an unauthenticated recording may not accomplish what the parent expects.

Discovery should begin early. Records may need to be subpoenaed. Electronic evidence must be preserved. Testing protocols should be requested before the final hearing rather than after a disputed incident has faded. Expert involvement should be considered strategically, not used simply to make the case look more serious.

Defending a Request for Equal Time-Sharing

A parent defending 50/50 should not rely on the presumption alone. The better defense proves that the proposed plan works.

That may include evidence of stable housing, appropriate childcare, reliable transportation, school involvement, medical knowledge, negative drug testing, treatment compliance, effective communication, consistent exercise of parenting time, and a practical exchange schedule.

The defense should also test the opposing parent’s proof:

• Is the allegation current?

• Is it supported by firsthand evidence?

• Is there a demonstrated effect on the child?

• Is the conduct isolated or part of a pattern?

• Is the evidence admissible?

• Has the accusing parent engaged in similar conduct?

• Does the proposed remedy address the alleged risk, or merely punish the other parent?

• Is the request inconsistent with the accusing parent’s prior conduct or agreements?

A parent accused of substance abuse or mental instability should avoid defensive generalities. Objective testing, credible treatment evidence, and demonstrated stability are usually more effective than insisting that every allegation is a lie.

Common Arguments That May Not Be Enough

Standing alone, the following assertions may be insufficient to overcome the presumption:

• “I have always been the primary parent.”

• “The other parent works full time.”

• “The child has a bedroom only at my house.”

• “We do not communicate well.”

• “The child says 50/50 is inconvenient.”

• “The other parent has a diagnosis.”

• “The other parent has a new partner.”

• “I do not trust the other parent.”

• “The other parent did something irresponsible years ago.”

• “The child support calculation would be unfair.”

Any of these facts may become relevant when supported by context and connected to the statutory factors. None should be treated as a substitute for proof.

Economic inequality is particularly misunderstood. A parent does not receive more overnights merely because that parent has a larger home or earns more money. Conversely, equal time-sharing does not eliminate child support. Florida courts may still order support under the guidelines, and parents facing that issue should review the rules governing Florida child support.

Choosing the Right Remedy

Winning does not always mean reducing the other parent to minimal contact. The requested remedy should match the proven problem.

Depending on the evidence, a court may consider:

• A majority school-week schedule;

• Alternating weekends with additional weekday contact;

• A long-distance or seasonal schedule;

• Daytime time-sharing without overnights;

• Supervised time-sharing;

• Neutral or protected exchanges;

• Alcohol or drug testing;

• Restrictions on transportation;

• Therapeutic intervention;

• Sole parental responsibility;

• Ultimate decision-making authority over specified subjects; or

• A carefully structured progression subject to lawful review.

Parents seeking supervised time-sharing in Florida should be prepared to explain the risk, the type of supervision required, who should supervise, where contact should occur, and what conditions would justify later review.

Florida courts should not impose speculative automatic future changes based on assumptions about what may happen. In Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 2010), and Natali v. Natali, 313 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), the appellate courts warned against prospective parenting changes that depend on future speculation or improperly delegate judicial authority.

A safer order uses present evidence, clear conditions, and appropriate judicial review.

Litigation Risks, Fees, and the Absence of Traditional Damages

Time-sharing litigation is generally about equitable, child-focused relief—not an award of money damages for being treated unfairly by the other parent.

A court may establish or modify the parenting plan, impose safeguards, enforce an existing order, award make-up time, hold a party in contempt when legally appropriate, and award attorney’s fees in authorized circumstances. Separate civil or criminal conduct may create other remedies, but a parenting dispute itself ordinarily does not produce tort-style damages.

Attorney’s fees may become significant. Section 61.16 generally focuses on the parties’ financial resources, although litigation conduct and unnecessary proceedings can affect the analysis. Other statutes and rules may authorize fees or sanctions for particular violations.

A parent who makes claims without evidence, hides information, violates court orders, destroys electronic evidence, or forces unnecessary litigation may create substantial credibility and financial consequences. Learn more about attorney’s fees in Florida family law litigation.

Preserving the Record for Rehearing or Appeal

The trial judge has substantial discretion, but that discretion is not unlimited.

A contested time-sharing order may be vulnerable when the court applies the wrong legal standard, ignores mandatory safety provisions, fails to make required written findings, grants relief that was not requested, or enters a result unsupported by competent, substantial evidence.

Appellate strategy begins during the trial. The attorney must present admissible evidence, make appropriate objections, request the necessary findings, preserve excluded evidence through a proper proffer when required, and ensure that the hearing is transcribed.

Appellate deadlines can be short. A parent who receives a legally defective order should promptly obtain advice concerning rehearing and Florida family law appeals.

Trial Strategy at Mockler Leiner Law, P.A.

Equal time-sharing cases are rarely won by repeating that one parent is better. They are won by defining the child’s needs, proving the relevant facts, confronting the weaknesses in the opposing case, and presenting a parenting plan the judge can realistically order.

Richard Mockler and Angela Leiner approach contested parenting cases as trial lawyers. That means evaluating burdens of proof, discovery, admissibility, witnesses, expert evidence, cross-examination, remedies, written findings, and preservation of appellate issues from the beginning.

Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represents parents throughout Tampa, Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Pasco County, and the surrounding Tampa Bay area. Every case requires an individualized assessment. No responsible attorney can promise that a court will reject—or order—equal time-sharing before reviewing the evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions About Florida’s Equal Time-Sharing Presumption

Is 50/50 time-sharing mandatory in Florida?

No. Florida law creates a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child’s best interests. A court may order a different schedule when a parent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not best for the child.

What does “preponderance of the evidence” mean?

It means more likely than not. The parent challenging equal time-sharing must present enough credible evidence to persuade the court that an unequal schedule better serves the child’s interests.

Must I prove that the other parent is unfit?

Not necessarily. The legal question is whether equal time-sharing serves the child’s best interests. A parent may be generally fit but unable to exercise equal time-sharing because of distance, school demands, the child’s needs, instability, or another proven circumstance.

What is the strongest evidence against equal time-sharing?

The strongest evidence depends on the case. Safety concerns, domestic violence, abuse, untreated substance misuse, serious instability, geographic impossibility, developmental needs, and documented harm to the child can be highly significant. Objective records and credible firsthand testimony are usually more persuasive than accusations.

Does domestic violence matter without a conviction?

Yes. Florida courts must consider qualifying evidence of domestic violence and child abuse whether or not there was a conviction or injunction. A qualifying conviction can trigger an additional statutory presumption.

Can substance abuse defeat the 50/50 presumption?

Yes, when the evidence shows that substance abuse affects safety, judgment, supervision, reliability, or the child’s environment. A remote history without current parenting consequences may carry less weight than recent impairment, failed testing, or repeated unsafe conduct.

Can a mental-health diagnosis prevent equal time-sharing?

A diagnosis alone should not decide the issue. The court evaluates whether the condition affects parenting ability, judgment, stability, treatment compliance, or the child’s welfare.

Can a child choose which parent to live with?

No fixed age gives a child that power. The judge may consider a sufficiently mature child’s reasonable preference, but the preference is only one factor and does not control the decision.

Can distance between the parents justify an unequal schedule?

Yes. The court must consider geographic viability, school travel, transportation, exchange burdens, and the child’s daily schedule. Distance is most persuasive when supported by concrete evidence and a workable alternative plan.

Does a parent’s demanding work schedule prevent 50/50 time-sharing?

Not automatically. Courts understand that parents work and use childcare. The issue is whether the parent can reliably exercise the proposed schedule and whether extensive delegation serves the child’s interests under the circumstances.

Can parents agree to something other than 50/50?

Yes. The statute recognizes parenting schedules agreed to by the parents and approved by the court. The agreement should be comprehensive enough to prevent future disputes.

Does the presumption automatically change my existing parenting plan?

No. A parent seeking modification must generally prove a substantial and material change in circumstances and that the requested modification is in the child’s best interests. The existence of the equal time-sharing presumption does not automatically reopen a final order.

Does equal time-sharing eliminate child support?

No. Florida law expressly permits child support even when the parents have equal time-sharing. Income, insurance, childcare costs, overnights, and other guideline factors remain relevant.

Can the court order supervised time-sharing instead of 50/50?

Yes, when competent evidence establishes that supervision is necessary to protect the child. The order should identify the risk and impose conditions reasonably related to that risk.

What if the judge fails to make written findings?

Section 61.13 requires specific written findings when the court creates or modifies a contested time-sharing schedule. A deficient order may support a motion for rehearing or an appeal, but deadlines must be evaluated immediately.

Speak With a Tampa Child Custody Attorney

The equal time-sharing presumption is powerful, but it does not decide the case before the evidence is heard. Whether you are seeking an unequal schedule, defending a workable 50/50 plan, or challenging an unsafe parenting arrangement, the case should be prepared around the child, the statutory factors, and the remedy you actually need.

If you have questions concerning your legal rights, call Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. at (813) 331-5699 or contact us online to speak with one of our experienced attorneys.