CRUZ v. MORALES (2024)

Appellant Andrea Catalina Cruz appeals from the trial court's order denying her petition to relocate with her minor child. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing over the course of four days, and thereafter entered an order denying the petition for relocation, which properly considered and analyzed each of the requisite factors enumerated in section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2023). “When reviewing an order on a petition to relocate, an appellate court is limited to an abuse of discretion review based on whether the statutory findings made by the trial court are supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Mignott v. Mignott, 337 So. 3d 408, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). We find the trial court's order, and its statutory findings, are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and further conclude that no reversible error was committed during the evidentiary hearing.¹

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We further note that establishing that relocation is in the best interest of the relocating parent is not the same as establishing that relocation is in the best interest of the child. See, e.g., Coyle v. Coyle, 8 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that trial court erred in focusing on whether the mother's relocation “would improve the quality of her life, not necessarily the life of the child”).

EMAS, J.