Florida 50/50 custody law: the equal time-sharing presumption explained (2026)

Yes — since 1 July 2023 Florida law presumes that equal time-sharing of a child is in the child's best interests, and the judge who applies it sits in the circuit court. Florida does not say “custody” for the schedule: the statute, Fla. Stat. § 61.13, calls it a time-sharing schedule inside a parenting plan, and keeps decision-making separate under the name parental responsibility. The presumption is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, and it yields both to anything else in § 61.13 and to the parents' own agreement.

That is a reversal of the older law, which expressly said there was no presumption for or against any specific time-sharing schedule. The same 2023 act also changed how schedules are altered later: a modification needs a substantial and material change of circumstances — the word unanticipated was struck out — plus a best-interest determination.

What Florida law actually says

The governing section is Fla. Stat. § 61.13, “Support of children; parenting and time-sharing; powers of court”. The presumption is one sentence of it, at paragraph (2)(c)1: “Unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child.” The next sentence sets the bar for arguing against it: “To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the minor child.”

Two carve-outs sit inside that sentence: the presumption gives way to anything else § 61.13 provides, and to what the parents agree between themselves.

It is enforced through paperwork. Except where a time-sharing schedule is agreed to by the parties and approved by the court, the court must evaluate all of the best-interest factors in subsection (3) and make specific written findings of fact when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule. A schedule with no findings behind it is a schedule that can be appealed.

All of this arrived with chapter 2023-301 (CS/HB 1301), approved on 27 June 2023 and effective 1 July 2023. It replaced the opposite rule: the previous text said there was “no presumption for or against the father or mother of the child or for or against any specific time-sharing schedule”. That act and a second 2023 act on alimony (chapter 2023-315) also struck the word unanticipated from the modification standard, so changing a plan now takes a substantial and material change plus a best-interest determination — and one move was written in as a candidate: where the parents lived more than 50 miles apart when the last time-sharing order was entered and one moves within 50 miles of the other.

Sources: [1], [3], [4]

How a Florida court works through it

Rebutting the presumption means arguing the factors. Subsection (3) requires the court to determine best interests “by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to” a list of twenty lettered factors. Among them: each parent's capacity to honour the schedule and be reasonable when changes are needed; the geographic viability of the plan; the child's reasonable preference, where the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding and experience; evidence of domestic or sexual violence, child abuse, abandonment or neglect; and which parent performed the parenting tasks before and during the case. The list ends with a catch-all.

Decision-making runs on a separate track. The court “shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child”, weighing domestic violence, a reasonable belief of imminent danger of domestic or sexual violence, a reasonable belief of abuse, abandonment or neglect, and any other relevant factor. Three findings flip that default: a domestic-violence conviction of at least first-degree misdemeanour level; meeting the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d); or certain sex-offence convictions. A separate presumption runs against time-sharing in defined sex-offence cases, displaced only by a specific written finding that the parent poses no significant risk of harm and that time-sharing is in the child's best interests.

Whatever the outcome, the plan has statutory minimum contents: daily child-rearing tasks, the time-sharing schedule, responsibility for health care and school matters, communication methods, and — since 2024 — authorised exchange locations. Access to the child's records, including medical, dental and school records, may not be denied to either parent unless a court order specifically revokes that right. These cases are heard in the circuit court, with appeals to the District Courts of Appeal.

Sources: [1], [3], [11]

What equal time-sharing looks like, and what it does to support

The statute fixes the balance, not the rhythm. Alternating weeks, a 2-2-3 rotation and a 2-2-5-5 pattern all produce an equal year from different weeks. Our guide to 50/50 custody schedules sets them side by side, worked schedule examples show how each falls across a month, and the custody schedule planner turns one into dated days.

Child support lives in a different statute, § 61.30, which the 2023 act did not amend — its shared-time rules predate the presumption. The adjustment is mandatory: whenever a parenting plan, a court-ordered schedule or an arrangement the parties exercise by agreement gives each child a “substantial amount of time” with each parent, the court “shall adjust” support. Substantial amount of time means exercising time-sharing at least 20 percent of the overnights of the year — about 73 nights in a 365-day year, though the statute states the percentage, not the number.

The method is a gross-up and an offset. Each parent's apportioned obligation, excluding day care and health insurance, is multiplied by 1.5; each result is then multiplied by the percentage of the other parent's overnights; the difference is the transfer. So an equal schedule reduces the payment where incomes differ — it does not delete it. The court may still deviate, on grounds that include the receiving parent's low income and the likelihood that either parent will actually exercise the schedule. And failing to exercise the schedule, where that is not caused by the other parent, is a substantial change of circumstances for modifying support, retroactive to the first failure.

How often Florida orders land on equal time-sharing is not something we can source: no official state series was located, and the 2026 bill that would have required annual figures died in committee. Our custody statistics page collects the national data that exists.

Sources: [2], [9]

Florida terms you will meet in an order

• Time-sharing, or time-sharing schedule — the time the child spends with each parent. It is Florida's statutory replacement for physical custody and visitation.
• Parenting plan — the document that governs each parent's relationship with the child, with contents the statute prescribes as a minimum.
• Parental responsibility — decision-making authority. Shared is the default unless the court finds it would be detrimental to the child; sole parental responsibility is what it may order instead.
• Equal time-sharing — the presumed arrangement under § 61.13(2)(c)1. Parents call it 50/50.
• Substantial amount of time — for child support only: exercising time-sharing at least 20 percent of the overnights of the year.
• Substantial and material change of circumstances — the threshold for modifying a schedule since 1 July 2023, when “unanticipated” was deleted from it.

Sources: [1], [2], [3]

Recent changes in Florida

• 13 March 2026 Died in committee

  CS/SB 1128 would have added procedure around time-sharing hearings

  CS/SB 1128 (2026), “Family Law”, would have given certain time-sharing matters priority on the court's calendar, set procedural requirements for evidentiary hearings on temporary parental responsibility and time-sharing, and required the courts to publish an annual report on those hearings by circuit. It passed the Judiciary Committee 11–0 in February 2026 and died in the Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice on 13 March 2026; its House companion died the same day. Nothing changed.

  Official source: CS/SB 1128 (2026) official bill page

• 1 October 2025 In force — technical only

  Chapter 2025-156 reenacted part of § 61.13 without changing it

  Chapter 2025-156 (CS/CS/SB 1804), an act on capital human trafficking approved on 19 June 2025, reenacted § 61.13(2)(c) and (9)(c) purely to carry forward amended cross-references to ss. 775.21 and 943.0435. No word of the equal time-sharing presumption was altered.

  Official source: Chapter 2025-156, Laws of Florida

• 15 January 2025 Court ruling

  Gonzalez v. Henry: the “agreed to by the parties” carve-out has teeth

  In Gonzalez v. Henry, No. 3D24-0593, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam in a case turning on the opening words of § 61.13(2)(c)1. It quoted the presumption with its “unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties” qualifier: a parent who had agreed to time-sharing terms in mediation could not then attack them on appeal.

  Official source: Gonzalez v. Henry, 3D24-0593 (Fla. 3d DCA)

• 1 July 2024 In force

  The Cassie Carli Law added exchange locations to every parenting plan

  Chapter 2024-226 (CS/CS/HB 385), approved on 5 June 2024, requires a parenting plan approved by the court to designate authorised locations for exchanging the child unless both parents agree otherwise in writing, and lets the court require a neutral safe exchange location or a supervised-visitation location where it finds a risk or imminent threat of harm. It did not touch the presumption.

  Official source: Chapter 2024-226, Laws of Florida

• 1 July 2024 In force — technical only

  Two other 2024 acts touched § 61.13 without changing it

  Chapter 2024-70 (CS/CS/CS/SB 1224) amended § 61.13 only to conform cross-references, and chapter 2024-71 (CS/HB 305) reenacted § 61.13(9)(c) alone. Neither made a substantive change to parenting or time-sharing.

  Official source: Chapter 2024-70, Laws of Florida

Florida equal time-sharing: common questions

Sources