Collaborative Parenting Plans: Extraordinary Burden for Modification

Men standing near red crane haulling large heavy circular object. Photo by David Carballar (Unsplash)

In Florida, parents who seek modifying parenting plans face an extraordinary burden. This burden is called the “substantial change in circumstances” test. The test for modification applies unless the initial final judgment provides otherwise.

In Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court considered the issue of what test trial courts should use in modifying rotating custody agreements. The court concluded that unless otherwise provided in the final judgment, the two-part “substantial change” test used in Cooper v. Gress, 854 So.2d 262, 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), applies to the post-dissolution modification of all custody agreements

The substantial change test the Florida Supreme Court articulated in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005) applies to the modification of a divorce decree providing for the custody and care of a child.  Likewise, in paternity modifications, the substantial test applies. See, e.g., DMJ v. AJT, 190 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)George v. Lull, 181 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)Gaston v. Kanter, 982 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

For Custody Modification, Decrees Include Those Incorporating Settlement Agreements

A decree for purposes of the substantial change test includes both a decree that has incorporated a stipulated agreement concerning child custody and a decree awarding custody after an adversarial hearing. See Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464, 466 (1933).

This substantial change test requires the parent seeking modification of custody to show both that the circumstances have substantially, materially changed since the original custody determination and that the child’s best interests justify changing custody. Furthermore, the substantial change must be one not reasonably contemplated at the time of the original judgment. See Cooper, 854 So.2d at 265.

Final Judgments May Provide a Different Standard for Modification

Wade v. Hirschman says the substantial change test applies unless the judgment otherwise provides for the standard that should be applied when one party seeks a modification. See, e.g., Mooney v. Mooney, 729 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (parents agreed that beginning of school would constitute a change in circumstances which would require custody to be readdressed); Greene v. Suhor, 783 So.2d 290, 290-91 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (custody order provided that either parent could seek reconsideration of the custody issue when the child started school without showing a change in circumstances).

That exception gives parents opportunity to reach settlement agreements providing for a less burdensome standard for modification than the substantial change in circumstances test.

Read more:

Part 1: Collaborative Family Law Agreements and A Child’s Prospective Best Interests 

Part 2: Collaborative Family Law Agreements: Florida Parenting Plan Basics

Part 3: Collaborative Family Law Agreements: Protecting a Child’s Future Best Interests

Part 4: Children’s Best Interests: Parenting Plans and Events Reasonably Certain to Occur

Part 5: Children’s Best Interests: Parenting Plans Entail Prediction

Part 7: Collaborative Family Law Agreements: Florida Favors Settlement Agreements

Part 8: Collaborative Parenting Plans: Judges Must Safeguard Children

Part 9: Collaborative Parenting Plans: Anticipating Events Reasonably Certain to Occur

Part 10: Parenting Plan Modification: Enlist Court Review When Predicted Events Occur

Part 11: Collaborative Parenting Plans: How Will You Resolve Future Impasses?

Part 12: Can Contingencies Parents Build into their Parenting Plans Be Modifications?

Part 13: Parenting Plans: Agreeing to a Different Burden for Modification

Follow & Like:
Skip to content