TIMESHARING MUST
ON THE PRESENT
I n an initial determination of
timesharing, a trial court uses the
factors in Florida Statute § 61.13(3)
to determine what timesharing is in
the best interest of the child. In 2018, one
of Florida’s District Courts of Appeal
twice decided the issue of whether a trial
court can base its determination on a
prospective-based analysis of the “best
interest” factors. In both cases, the District
Court ruled that the best interest of the
child must be determined based upon the
present, and not the future.
The first case was decided by the First
District Court of Appeals of Florida.
While Preudhomme v. Preudhomme dealt
with a number of other issues related to
dissolutions of marriage not discussed
herein, the case sets important precedence
for any cases where timesharing with
minor children will be determined. In
Preudhomme, each parent requested
different timesharing schedules. The
mother, a resident of Pensacola, Florida,
requested she exercise timesharing the
majority of the time, and for the father to
have alternating weekends and holiday
timesharing. The father, who resided
in Mobile, Alabama, requested rotating
timesharing on a weekly basis the child
was expected to start kindergarten
approximately 20 months later, and
then for the court to award him majority
timesharing. The trial court adopted the
father’s requested timesharing schedule,
and the mother appealed.
The second case, Horton v. Horton, was
also decided by the First District Court
of Appeals of Florida and followed
Preudhomme as important to timesharing
analyses. In Horton, the evidence focused
heavily on the bond between the mother
and the parents’ only minor child, as well
as the child’s strained relationship with
the father. The mother requested she be
LAARWT
BE BASED
By K. Dean Kantaras and Roberta Blush
K. Dean Kantaras, Esq.
142 TAMPA BAY MAGAZINE | MARCH/APRIL 2019
District has found that timesharing must be
determined based upon an analysis of the
present best interests of the child because
no trial court is equipped with a crystal
ball with which it can prophetically see
circumstances that could arise and affect
the best interest of the child in the interim.
Timesharing determinations are
incredibly fact intensive and require
a complete and thorough analysis of
the factors enumerated under Florida
Statutes § 61.30. The most effective ways
to provide a trial court with such thorough
analysis is through the appointment of
a guardian ad litem, social investigator,
and/or a qualified expert who can make
a parenting plan recommendation. The
use of these third parties can give a trial
court the eyes, ears, and full picture that
can sometimes be difficult (and in some
cases, impossible) to adequately present in
a courtroom setting. These third parties are
invaluable in complex timesharing cases
and can help to develop more than just a
brief glimpse into what is truly in the best
interest of the child. These individuals can
also educate the trial court as to what facts
are irrelevant to the present determination,
and which facts affect the present best
interest of the child. 9
EDITOR’S NOTE: K. Dean Kantaras is
the managing partner of K. Dean Kantaras,
P.A., a firm handling cases in family law and
immigration. Mr. Kantaras is board certified
in marital and family law by the Florida Bar.
He has been practicing for over 25 years and
is “AV” rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Roberta
“Bobbi” Blush is a graduate of the University of
Florida and Florida Coastal School of Law who
was admitted to the Florida Bar in 2014. Their
offices are located at 3531 Alternate 19, Palm
Harbor, 34683, (727) 781-0000 and 1930 East
Bay Drive, Largo, 33771, kantaraslaw.com.
awarded majority timesharing, and the
father requested rotating timesharing on
a weekly basis. The trial court sought to
fix the damaged relationship the father
had with the minor child and ordered
counseling and a three-step timesharing
schedule. Under the graduated schedule,
the child would spend one to three days
per week with his father, and after one
year, the timesharing would rotate on a
weekly basis. The father appealed the trial
court’s decision.
In both cases, the First District concluded
that a trial court cannot analyze the “best
interest” factors prospectively; rather, what
is in the best interest of the child must
be determined in the present. The case
law stems not from original timesharing
determinations, but instead from relocation
cases that are analyzed under Florida
Statute § 61.13001. Nonetheless, the First