## Facts

- David Fredman (father) and Leslie Ann Fredman, now known as Leslie Ann Melton (mother), divorced in October 2002.
- The final judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement providing shared parental responsibility, naming the mother as the primary residential parent, and granting the father liberal visitation (at least one night per week and every other weekend).
- The judgment and agreement contained no express limitation on the mother’s ability to relocate with the children.
- After the divorce, the mother and the parties’ two sons (born in 1994 and 1997) lived in the Brandon, Florida area near the father.
- The father had frequent, ongoing in-person contact with the children and was highly involved in their day-to-day lives.
- The father’s extended family lived nearby and had regular contact with the children, who had strong relationships with that family and ties to their Florida community.
- The mother became engaged to (and planned to marry) Mike Melton, who lived in Texas, and she planned to move with the children to Ponder, Texas.
- In January 2004, the mother filed a supplemental petition seeking to modify the father’s visitation (and related support matters) to accommodate relocation; the trial court entered a temporary injunction preventing the move while the case was pending.
- After a final hearing, the trial court denied the relocation request; in an earlier appeal, the Second District reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
- On remand, the trial court again denied relocation, finding it was not in the children’s best interests, even though it found the proposed long-distance visitation plan adequate.
- Evidence showed the children did not know anyone in Texas other than Melton and his son, and the Florida and Texas school systems were comparable, with no meaningful showing of economic or educational gain for the children from the move.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s pre-2006 parental-relocation statute, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), is unconstitutional because it violates the relocating parent’s rights to privacy, interstate travel, or equal protection.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the mother’s request to relocate the children from Florida to Texas under section 61.13(2)(d).

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the post-dissolution order denying the mother’s supplemental petition and prohibiting relocation.
- The court held section 61.13(2)(d) (2004) is constitutional and does not violate privacy, travel, or equal-protection guarantees.
- The court held the trial court’s best-interests determination was supported by competent, substantial evidence and therefore did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Section 61.13(2)(d) (2004) required a neutral, factor-based inquiry into whether relocation was in the child’s best interests; it did not require a presumption favoring or opposing relocation.
- A primary residential parent does not have a unilateral constitutional right to relocate children when the move would substantially affect the other parent’s relationship with the children; both parents have constitutionally significant parental interests.
- The relocation statute does not bar a parent from moving; it governs whether the children may be moved in a way that changes custody/visitation realities, which is subject to best-interests review.
- Florida’s privacy protections do not give one parent sole authority to make major residential decisions that materially reduce the other parent’s ability to maintain an ongoing parent-child relationship.
- The statute does not draw a suspect classification and applies in the same manner to both parents; at minimum, it satisfies rational-basis review because it is reasonably related to the state’s legitimate interest in children’s welfare and maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents.
- Relocation rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will affirm when the trial court applied the correct standard and its findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

Fredman upheld the constitutionality of Florida’s pre-2006 relocation framework, rejecting claims that a primary residential parent is constitutionally entitled to move children without a neutral best-interests review. Applying that framework, the court affirmed denial of the proposed move to Texas because the children had deep, established ties to their father, extended family, and community in Florida, lacked meaningful connections in Texas beyond the mother’s new spouse and his child, and the record did not show a significant countervailing benefit that would justify reducing the children’s frequent in-person contact with their father.


Fredman v. Fredman, 960 So. 2d 52 (2007)