Opinion
No. 1D21-3575
06-14-2023
Kayla M. PUN, Appellant, v. Anthony F. PUN, Appellee.
Linda A. Bailey and Hunter J. Hendrix of the Law Office of Linda A. Bailey, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Shannon L. Novey, Novey Gonzalez Family Law, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Linda A. Bailey and Hunter J. Hendrix of the Law Office of Linda A. Bailey, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Shannon L. Novey, Novey Gonzalez Family Law, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Winokur, J.
Kayla Pun ("Former Wife") challenges the denial of her petition to relocate from Florida to Texas with her two children from her prior marriage to Anthony Pun ("Former Husband"). We affirm the order.
Former Wife argues that the trial court improperly applied a presumption against relocation when it addressed her motion. Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, sets out the applicable standards to address issues arising from parental relocation with a child. Subsection (7) of this statute provides that no "presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child" arises because the relocation may "materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person." Former Wife points to several statements from the final order that she claims demonstrate the trial court's preference for maintaining the status quo. Our review of the order reveals no evidence that the trial court applied a presumption for or against relocation. Rather than considering the discrepancies between the current time-sharing arrangement and the proposed post-relocation time-sharing arrangement, the trial court evaluated Former Husband's relationship with the children and whether the proposed arrangement would be sufficient to foster that relationship. The trial court considered the other factors set out in section 61.13001(7) and found that relocation was not in the best interests of the children.
Former Wife also challenges the order on the ground that the court's factual findings were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We affirm the order on this issue without further discussion. See Hoyt v. Chalker , 228 So. 3d 697, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
We find that the trial court applied the correct standard in reaching this conclusion, and that competent substantial evidence supported it. None of the cases the Former Wife cites convince us otherwise. In particular, in Wilson v. Wilson , the district court concluded that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying a request to relocate a minor child. 827 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In contrast, the trial court in this case acknowledged and applied the proper analysis: the best interests of the children.
Because the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and it did not apply a presumption against relocation, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED .
Roberts and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.