This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every parenting-plan case depends on the specific facts of the child, the parents, and the family.
Introduction
Many Florida parents walk into a divorce or paternity case asking the same question: "Can I get 50/50 custody?"
The short answer is: yes, a Florida parent can receive equal time-sharing—but the better question is not whether 50/50 is possible. It is whether equal time-sharing is in the child's best interests under Florida law.
Florida no longer uses the old labels of "custody" and "visitation" in most family-law orders. Instead, courts establish a parenting plan and a time-sharing schedule. And under the current version of Florida Statutes section 61.13, Florida law now contains a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the best interests of a minor child, unless the parties agree otherwise or the statute provides otherwise.
That presumption matters. But it does not mean that every parent automatically receives a 50/50 schedule.
Florida's Current Rule: Equal Time-Sharing Is Presumed to Be Best for the Child
Florida's parenting statute states that it is the public policy of the state that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after separation or divorce, and that parents should share the rights, responsibilities, and joys of raising their children. The statute then goes further: unless the parties agree otherwise or another statutory provision applies, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the child's best interests. Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
A rebuttable presumption means the court starts from a legal assumption—in this context, that equal time-sharing is best for the child—but that assumption can be overcome with evidence. The parent opposing equal time-sharing must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that equal time-sharing is not in the child's best interests. Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
In practical terms, "preponderance of the evidence" means more likely than not. It is not enough for a parent to say, "I do not like 50/50," "the other parent does things differently," or "I have always been the more involved parent." The question is whether the evidence shows that an equal schedule would not serve this particular child's best interests.
50/50 Time-Sharing Is Not the Same Thing as "No Child Support"
One common misconception is that equal time-sharing automatically eliminates child support. It does not. Florida's statute expressly provides that an order for equal time-sharing does not prevent the court from entering a child-support order. Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
Child support is calculated separately under Florida's child-support guidelines and depends on several factors, including the parents' incomes, health-insurance costs, daycare costs, overnights, and other statutory considerations. A parent may have equal time-sharing and still owe child support.
What Florida Case Law Says About Equal Time-Sharing
Florida case law is important because courts were dealing with equal or rotating parenting schedules long before the current statutory presumption was added. Older cases often used the phrase "rotating custody." Today, the terminology has changed, but many of the practical concerns remain relevant.
Florida Moved Away From a Presumption Against Equal Time
Historically, Florida courts were skeptical of rotating custody arrangements. That changed as the Legislature revised the family-law statutes.
In Corey v. Corey, 29 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), the Third District reversed a trial court that had required a father to overcome a presumption against rotating custody. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and that the proper analysis was the best interests of the child.
The Fourth District reached a similar conclusion in Mudafort v. Lee, 62 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), explaining that statutory changes had eliminated the old judicial presumption against equal time-sharing. In other words, a parent requesting equal time no longer had to prove "exceptional circumstances" simply because the schedule was equal.
Later, in Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), the Fifth District confirmed that, under then-current law, there was no presumption for or against a specific time-sharing schedule. Instead, the schedule had to be based on the child's best interests. Although the statute has since been amended to create a rebuttable presumption in favor of equal time-sharing, the child's best interests remain the central issue.
Equal Time Still Must Be Supported by the Facts
The fact that equal time-sharing is favored by statute does not mean a judge can ignore the evidence.
In Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the trial court ordered an annual rotating schedule that required a school-age child with special needs to move back and forth between parents who lived more than 300 miles apart. The First District reversed. Even though there was no longer a presumption against this type of schedule, the appellate court held that the order was not supported by competent, substantial evidence that the arrangement was in the child's best interests.
Bainbridge remains a useful reminder: equal time-sharing must work for the child, not just appear mathematically fair to the parents.
How a Parent Can Rebut the Equal Time-Sharing Presumption
Because the presumption is rebuttable, a Florida court can order something other than 50/50 time-sharing when the evidence shows that equal time is not in the child's best interests. The court must evaluate the statutory best-interest factors in section 61.13, including the circumstances of the child and the family.
Some of the most important considerations include:
1. The Parents' Ability to Put the Child First
Florida courts look at each parent's demonstrated capacity and disposition to consider and act on the child's needs, rather than the parent's own preferences. A parent who treats time-sharing as a competition, uses the child as leverage, or refuses to communicate reasonably may have difficulty persuading the court that a 50/50 schedule will work.
2. Geographic Practicality
A 50/50 schedule is easier when parents live close to one another, especially when the child is in school. Section 61.13 specifically directs courts to consider the geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention to school-age children and travel time. Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
This issue was central in Bainbridge, where an annual rotating schedule between homes more than 300 miles apart was reversed because the evidence did not support that arrangement as being in the child's best interests. Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
3. Stability and Continuity
The court considers how long the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and whether maintaining continuity is desirable. Stability does not automatically favor one parent over the other, but it can become important when a proposed 50/50 schedule would disrupt schooling, medical care, therapy, extracurricular routines, or community ties.
4. The Child's Developmental Needs
A schedule that works for a teenager may not work for a toddler. A plan that works during summer may not work during the school year. Courts can consider the child's developmental stage, special needs, medical needs, school performance, and the practical ability of each parent to meet those needs.
5. Domestic Violence, Abuse, Neglect, or Safety Concerns
Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, abandonment, neglect, or imminent danger is highly significant. Section 61.13 requires courts to consider this evidence in determining the child's best interests and also contains specific presumptions and restrictions in certain circumstances. Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
6. Each Parent's Willingness to Support the Other Parent's Relationship With the Child
Florida public policy favors frequent and continuing contact with both parents. A parent who consistently interferes with the other parent's time, withholds information, disparages the other parent, or refuses to honor reasonable schedule adjustments may undermine his or her own position.
7. Communication and Co-Parenting Ability
Equal time-sharing usually requires regular communication about school, medical issues, activities, transportation, homework, discipline, and schedule changes. If the parents cannot communicate safely or effectively, the court may consider whether equal time-sharing will create conflict that harms the child.
If You Want 50/50 Time-Sharing, What Should You Be Prepared to Show?
A parent seeking equal time-sharing should be ready to present concrete evidence—not just general statements—that the schedule is workable and good for the child. Helpful evidence may include:
- A proposed parenting plan with specific exchange days, times, and locations;
- Evidence that both homes are safe, appropriate, and close enough to make the schedule practical;
- School, daycare, extracurricular, and transportation plans;
- A history of consistent involvement in the child's daily life;
- Proof of attending medical appointments, school meetings, activities, and routines;
- A communication plan for school, medical, and activity updates;
- Evidence that the parent supports the child's relationship with the other parent; and
- A plan that accounts for the child's age, schedule, developmental needs, and stability.
The goal is to show that 50/50 is not merely fair to the adults—it is workable, stable, and beneficial for the child.
If You Oppose 50/50 Time-Sharing, What Evidence Matters?
A parent opposing equal time-sharing should be prepared to prove why equal time is not in the child's best interests. The focus should remain on the child, not on punishing the other parent.
Evidence may include:
- Long travel distances or school-district problems;
- A parent's work schedule that makes the proposed plan impractical;
- The child's medical, educational, therapeutic, or developmental needs;
- A history of missed time-sharing, unreliable exchanges, or lack of involvement;
- Substance abuse or unsafe home conditions;
- Domestic violence, abuse, neglect, or credible safety concerns;
- A demonstrated inability to communicate or co-parent without harming the child; or
- Evidence that the proposed schedule would seriously disrupt the child's stability.
The burden is not met by personal dislike, resentment, or the belief that one parent is "better." The evidence should explain why equal time-sharing would not serve this child's best interests.
Does the Judge Have to Make Written Findings?
Except when the parents agree to a time-sharing schedule and the court approves it, section 61.13 requires the court to evaluate the statutory best-interest factors and make specific written findings of fact when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule. Fla. Stat. § 61.13.
This requirement is important. Written findings help the parties understand why the court ordered a particular schedule and help an appellate court review whether the decision was supported by the evidence.
Florida appellate cases repeatedly emphasize that time-sharing decisions must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. In Schwieterman, the Fifth District explained that trial courts have broad discretion in parenting-plan cases, but the time-sharing plan must still be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
The Bottom Line: 50/50 Is Presumed, Not Guaranteed
So, can a Florida parent get 50/50 custody?
Yes. Florida law now starts with a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child's best interests. That is a meaningful legal starting point.
But 50/50 is not automatic. The court must still consider the child's best interests, the statutory factors, the family's circumstances, and the evidence presented. A parent who wants equal time-sharing should be prepared to show that the proposed schedule is practical, stable, and child-centered. A parent who opposes equal time-sharing must be prepared to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that equal time-sharing is not in the child's best interests.
Florida's equal time-sharing presumption is not a prize for parents to win. It is a framework designed to keep the focus where it belongs: on the child's welfare, stability, safety, and meaningful relationship with both parents whenever possible.
Key Takeaways
- Florida uses the terms parenting plan and time-sharing, not traditional "custody" and "visitation."
- Equal time-sharing is now rebuttably presumed to be in a child's best interests under Florida Statutes section 61.13.
- The presumption can be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The child's best interests remain the controlling focus.
- Equal time-sharing does not automatically eliminate child support.
- Florida appellate cases such as Corey, Mudafort, Bainbridge, and Schwieterman show that courts must base time-sharing decisions on the child's best interests and competent, substantial evidence.
Speak With a Florida Family Law Attorney
If you are involved in a Florida divorce or paternity case and want to pursue—or oppose—a 50/50 time-sharing schedule, speak with an experienced Florida family law attorney. The right strategy depends on the facts: your child's needs, the parents' schedules, the distance between homes, school and medical issues, safety concerns, and the history of each parent's involvement.
A well-prepared parenting-plan case is not about slogans. It is about evidence, practicality, and what arrangement best serves the child. Contact The Desai Firm for a free consultation.