Ilse Gevaert, Appellant, v. Allan Teh, Appellee. (2025)

Appellant Ilse Gevaert appeals an order denying her petition to relocate her minor child from Miami, Florida to Studio City, California. She asserts that, when the burden shifted, Appellee Allan Teh did not produce sufficient evidence that the proposed relocation was not in the best interest of the child. See § 61.13001(8), Fla. Stat. (2024). Specifically, she asserts that his evidence did not overcome her expert witness’ testimony.

But this argument suffers from tunnel vision. Indeed, the expert witness’ testimony focused solely on what schools are best for the child. Whereas the trial court was required to consider a wider range of factors—those set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. See § 61.13001(7)(a)-(k), Fla. Stat. And it did.

In reaching its conclusion, the trial court scrutinized the evidence presented by both parties and performed a detailed analysis of the factors in 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. Ultimately, it found Teh met his burden and the proposed relocation was not in the best interest of the child. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying relocation. Sanabria v. Sanabria, 271 So. 3d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Its findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. See also Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The trial court's decision will be affirmed if the statutory findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.”). And so, we affirm.

Affirmed.

GOODEN, J.