As Appellant contends, section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, which addresses parental relocation with a child, does not apply to this case given that he relocated with the child prior to the institution of any dissolution proceeding. See Rolison v. Rolison, 144 So.3d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ("[T]he plain language of the relocation statute applies only where a parent's principal place of residence changes 'at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing' . . . or 'at the time of filing the pending action.' § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat.
Milton v. Milton, 113 So.3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So.3d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)). Florida's relocation statute, section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, does not apply to a change of a parent's principal place of residence before any paternity order has been issued. See Rolison v. Rolison, 144 So.3d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that section 61.13001 did not apply where the mother moved to Georgia before the father filed for dissolution of marriage). A parent may move with the children without seeking permission from the court or the other parent.
The relocation statute, pursuant to which the father sought to change the children's primary residence without a change in the residence of either parent, does not authorize such relief. See id . (defining "[r]elocation"); Clark v. Meizlik , 289 So. 3d 983, 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (recognizing that section 61.13001(1)(e) authorizes "a petition to relocate" only if "a parent or individual with whom a child resides" seeks to "move fifty miles or more away from their current residence"); Essex v. Davis , 116 So. 3d 445, 447-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ( section 61.13001 does not apply to relocation of child's residence without an accompanying request to change the primary residence of the parent or custodian with whom child lives); Rolison v. Rolison , 144 So. 3d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ("[T]he plain language of the relocation statute applies only where a parent's principal place of residence changes[.]"); A.F. v. R.P.B. , 100 So. 3d 71, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (relocation statute had no applicability where father was "not changing his own residence," but rather was "seeking to change the child's principal residence").
Because there was a pending action to establish timesharing, the Mother could seek the court's permission to relocate from her then residence. Cf. A.F. v. R.P.B. , 100 So. 3d 71, 71-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that section 61.13001 did not apply because the father was already living in a different state when the parties filed competing petitions for parental responsibility and timesharing); Rolison v. Rolison , 144 So. 3d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (concluding that section 61.13001 did not apply when the mother was living in Georgia when the father filed for dissolution of the marriage). There is no language in either the December 9, 2014, general magistrate report and recommendation or in the February 5, 2015, trial court order indicating that the ruling allowing the Mother to relocate was temporary.
Because there was a pending action to establish timesharing, the Mother could seek the court's permission to relocate from her then residence. Cf. A.F. v. R.P.B., 100 So. 3d 71, 71-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that section 61.13001 did not apply because the father was already living in a different state when the parties filed competing petitions for parental responsibility and time-sharing); Rolison v. Rolison, 144 So. 3d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (concluding that section 61.13001 did not apply when the mother was living in Georgia when the father filed for dissolution of the marriage). There is no language in either the December 9, 2014, general magistrate report and recommendation or in the February 5, 2015, trial court order approving such indicating that the ruling allowing the Mother to relocate was temporary.