Is There an Age When a Child Can Choose Which Parent to Live With in Florida?

No. Florida law does not establish an age at which a minor child automatically receives the legal authority to choose which parent to live with.

This is an important distinction because parents frequently hear that children can choose once they turn 12, 13, 14, or another particular age. Florida law does not establish such a birthday-based rule.

Instead, Florida courts determine parenting arrangements according to the child’s best interests. As part of that analysis, a court may consider the child’s reasonable preference when the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

An older child’s age and maturity may make the child’s views particularly relevant in some cases, but the child does not replace the judge as the person responsible for deciding a disputed parenting arrangement.

What Does Florida Law Say About a Child’s Preference?

Florida law expressly recognizes that a child’s preference can be relevant to a parenting decision. Under Florida Statute § 61.13, courts consider multiple factors when determining the child’s best interests.

One of those factors is the reasonable preference of the child when the court considers the child to have sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

This distinction helps protect children from being placed in the position of having to make the final decision between their parents.

Does the Judge Have to Follow the Child’s Choice?

No. A Florida judge does not have to establish a particular parenting arrangement simply because the child says that he or she wants to live with one parent.

The reasons behind the child’s preference can matter. For example, an older child may prefer one household because it provides greater stability for school, extracurricular activities, transportation, employment, or important relationships.

Another child might prefer a household primarily because one parent has fewer rules, does not enforce homework requirements, allows greater freedom, or provides privileges the other parent does not.

Those situations are not necessarily equivalent.

The court can consider why the child has expressed the preference and evaluate those reasons together with the other circumstances affecting the child’s best interests.

Ultimately, the legal question is not simply, “Which parent did the child choose?” The question is what parenting plan and time-sharing arrangement best serves the child.

What Does “Reasonable Preference” Mean?

A child’s preference may be more meaningful when the child can express thoughtful reasons connected to daily life, stability, relationships, or well-being rather than simply stating a desire to live with one parent.

Depending on the circumstances, the reasons for a child’s preference might involve:

• school and educational stability;
• established friendships and community relationships;
• extracurricular activities;
• transportation and commuting considerations;
• relationships with siblings;
• the child’s established routine;
• emotional well-being;
• relationships with each parent; or
• legitimate safety concerns.

The court can evaluate the child’s preference in context rather than treating the child’s statement as a vote for one parent.

A statement such as “I want to live with Dad” or “I want to live with Mom” identifies a preference, but it does not necessarily explain why that arrangement would serve the child’s best interests.

Does an Older Child’s Preference Carry More Weight?

It can. Age may be relevant because maturity, understanding, and life experience often increase as children get older. However, Florida law does not assign an automatic amount of weight to a child’s preference based solely on age.

A mature teenager who clearly explains thoughtful reasons for wanting a different parenting arrangement may present a very different situation from a younger child who does not fully understand the consequences of the requested change.

Even children of the same age can have very different levels of maturity and understanding. The court can therefore consider the individual child rather than applying a rule that every 12-, 14-, or 16-year-old receives the same degree of decision-making influence.

The child’s age can matter. The child’s maturity can matter. The reasons for the preference can matter. None of those considerations, standing alone, automatically decides the case.

Can a 12-Year-Old Choose Which Parent to Live With in Florida?

No automatic right to choose arises when a child turns 12. Florida law does not establish age 12 as a threshold at which a child gains authority to determine where to live.

A 12-year-old’s preference may be considered if the court determines that the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a reasonable preference. The child’s maturity, reasons for the preference, and the surrounding family circumstances can all be relevant.

Even when the child’s preference is considered, it remains one factor within the broader best-interests analysis. The court—not the 12-year-old—ultimately determines a disputed parenting arrangement.

Can a 13-Year-Old Choose Which Parent to Live With in Florida?

Turning 13 does not give a child an automatic right to choose which parent to live with. Florida law does not establish age 13 as a legal threshold for deciding a parenting arrangement.

A 13-year-old may have sufficient maturity and understanding for the child’s preference to be meaningful in a particular case. However, the court evaluates the individual child and the reasons for the preference rather than assuming that every 13-year-old should have the same influence over the parenting schedule.

The child’s preference is considered together with the other circumstances affecting the child’s best interests.

Can a 14-Year-Old Choose Which Parent to Live With in Florida?

A 14-year-old does not automatically acquire the legal authority to decide where to live. However, the views of a sufficiently mature 14-year-old may be relevant when a Florida court evaluates the child’s best interests.

For example, the child may have concerns involving school, transportation, extracurricular activities, siblings, established relationships, or the practical operation of the existing time-sharing schedule. The court can consider those circumstances together with the child’s maturity and the reasons for the preference.

The important distinction remains the same: a child’s preference may influence the court’s analysis, but it does not automatically determine the outcome.

Can a 16-Year-Old Decide Where to Live in Florida?

A 16-year-old still does not have an automatic legal right to rewrite a Florida parenting plan. An existing court order remains important even when an older teenager strongly prefers a different living arrangement.

As a practical matter, however, the views of an older teenager can become increasingly significant. A 16-year-old may have school obligations, employment, transportation needs, extracurricular activities, social relationships, and other responsibilities that affect whether an existing time-sharing arrangement remains workable.

An older teenager may also be able to explain the reasons for a preference with greater maturity and understanding than a much younger child.

Those circumstances can be relevant, but the teenager should not be told that reaching age 16 automatically gives the teenager authority to disregard an existing parenting plan.

What Factors Does a Florida Court Consider Besides the Child’s Preference?

A child’s preference is only one part of Florida’s broader best-interests analysis. Florida Statute § 61.13 identifies numerous factors that can be relevant when a court establishes or modifies parental responsibility and a parenting plan.

Depending on the circumstances, those considerations can include:

• each parent’s ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship;
• the anticipated division of parental responsibilities after litigation;
• the geographic practicality of the parenting plan;
• the length of time the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment;
• the desirability of maintaining continuity;
• the child’s home, school, and community record;
• each parent’s knowledge of the child’s circumstances;
• each parent’s involvement in the child’s school and activities;
• the parents’ ability to maintain consistent routines;
• the child’s developmental needs;
• evidence involving domestic violence, abuse, abandonment, or neglect; and
• other circumstances relevant under Florida law.

The court evaluates the child’s preference within this larger picture. A strong preference may be important, but it does not cause the other considerations to disappear.

How Does a Judge Decide Whether a Child Is Mature Enough?

Florida law does not use a simple age-based maturity test. Instead, the statute refers to whether the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

The circumstances surrounding the child’s views can therefore matter. Questions may include:

• Does the child understand the practical consequences of the requested parenting arrangement?
• Can the child explain the reasons for the preference?
• Are those reasons consistent with the child’s circumstances?
• Has the preference remained relatively consistent or changed suddenly?
• Does the preference appear independent?
• Is there evidence that one parent has pressured or influenced the child?
• Is the child primarily trying to avoid reasonable household rules or discipline?
• Are school, emotional, family, or safety concerns contributing to the preference?

The court is therefore not simply counting the child’s years. It is evaluating whether the child’s expressed preference is sufficiently informed and reasonable to be considered as part of the best-interests determination.

Will a Florida Judge Talk to the Child?

Possibly, but parents should not assume that a child will simply appear in court and tell the judge which parent the child wants to live with.

The participation of minor children in family-law litigation is handled carefully. Courts generally seek to avoid unnecessarily placing children in the middle of disputes between their parents.

Whether and how a judge receives information concerning a child’s preference depends on the circumstances of the case and the procedures the court determines are appropriate.

A parent who believes the child’s views should be considered should therefore discuss the appropriate procedure with a family-law attorney rather than attempting to arrange direct contact between the child and the judge.

Can a Child Testify in a Florida Custody Case?

A parent should not assume that a minor child can simply be brought to a hearing or trial to testify about which parent the child prefers.

Florida family-law proceedings treat the testimony and courtroom participation of minor children differently from ordinary adult witnesses. This reflects the court’s concern about exposing children unnecessarily to parental litigation.

When information from a child may be relevant, the appropriate procedure should be determined through the court process. Parents should avoid promising a child that the child will be able to “tell the judge” what should happen.

Protecting the child from unnecessary involvement in the parents’ conflict should remain an important consideration even when the child’s views may be relevant to the case.

Should a Parent Ask the Child Which Parent They Want to Live With?

Parents should be very careful about asking a child to choose between them.

There is an important difference between listening when a child expresses concerns and repeatedly asking the child which parent the child would rather live with.

Questions or statements such as these can place significant pressure on a child:

• “Don’t you want to live with me?”
• “Wouldn’t you be happier here?”
• “Tell the judge you want to stay with me.”
• “You’re old enough now to decide.”
• “Which parent do you really want to live with?”

A child may love both parents and feel that choosing one parent means rejecting the other. Repeated questioning can increase anxiety and place the child directly in the middle of an adult dispute.

Parents should listen carefully to legitimate concerns without turning the child into the decision-maker or an advocate for one side of the case.

What If One Parent Is Coaching the Child?

Concerns that one parent is pressuring or coaching a child can become important when the child’s stated preference is being considered.

A child’s preference may be viewed differently if evidence suggests that the child’s statements result from manipulation, promises, repeated criticism of the other parent, fear of disappointing a parent, or pressure to take sides.

Parents should avoid conduct such as:

• discussing litigation strategy with the child;
• telling the child what to say about the other parent;
• criticizing the other parent in the child’s presence;
• asking the child to report what happens in the other parent’s home;
• promising privileges or rewards for requesting a different parenting arrangement;
• encouraging the child to refuse time-sharing; or
• asking the child to deliver messages between the parents.

If a parent believes the other parent is improperly influencing the child, responding by coaching the child in the opposite direction can make the situation worse. The concern should instead be addressed through appropriate communication, documentation, and legal procedures.

What If the Child Refuses to Go to the Other Parent’s House?

A child’s refusal to go to the other parent’s home does not automatically cancel an existing parenting plan or time-sharing order. Parents generally remain responsible for following court orders unless the order is modified or the court grants other appropriate relief.

The reason for the child’s refusal can be extremely important. A child may resist time-sharing because of:

• an ordinary disagreement with a parent;
• household rules or discipline;
• school or extracurricular conflicts;
• transportation or scheduling problems;
• conflict with a parent’s new spouse or partner;
• strained relationships within the household;
• emotional or behavioral concerns; or
• fear, abuse, domestic violence, or another legitimate safety concern.

These situations should not all be treated the same way. A teenager who would rather attend a weekend activity presents a very different issue from a child who reports being afraid to enter the other parent’s home.

When refusal becomes persistent, parents may need to determine what is causing the problem and whether the existing parenting arrangement remains workable. Simply allowing the child to decide whether to participate in court-ordered time-sharing can create additional legal problems.

What If the Child Says They Are Afraid of the Other Parent?

A child’s statement that he or she is afraid of the other parent should be taken seriously, particularly when the child describes circumstances involving possible abuse, domestic violence, neglect, threats, substance abuse, or another potential danger.

Safety concerns are different from a child’s ordinary preference for one household. The issue may no longer be simply which parent the child would rather live with. Instead, the court may need to consider whether circumstances affect the child’s safety and welfare.

Parents should listen carefully without coaching the child, suggesting answers, or conducting repeated interrogations. What the child actually says and the surrounding circumstances can be important.

If there is a legitimate concern that a child faces immediate harm, a parent may need to determine whether emergency court intervention is appropriate. Greenberg Law discusses these situations further in Emergency Child Custody Orders in Florida.

Immediate danger should be treated differently from an ordinary disagreement about a parenting schedule.

Does Domestic Violence Affect How the Court Views a Child’s Preference?

Yes. Domestic violence can be highly significant in a Florida parenting case. If a child’s preference is connected to fear, violence, abuse, or safety concerns, the court may need to examine circumstances extending well beyond the child’s stated preference.

Florida Statute § 61.13 includes domestic violence and other safety-related circumstances among the matters relevant to parenting determinations.

For example, a child’s statement that “I want to live with Mom” has a very different context if the child is expressing a preference because the other household has fewer conveniences than if the child describes violence or genuine fear in the other household.

When domestic violence is involved, questions may arise concerning parental responsibility, time-sharing, protective measures, or other court intervention depending on the circumstances.

For a more detailed discussion, see Greenberg Law’s Can a Parent Lose Custody for Domestic Violence in Florida?

Can a Child’s Preference Change a 50/50 Time-Sharing Arrangement?

A child’s preference may be relevant when a parent seeks to change an existing 50/50 time-sharing arrangement, but the child’s preference does not automatically modify the court order.

For example, as a child becomes older, an equal time-sharing schedule that worked well during elementary school may become more difficult because of high school, sports, employment, transportation, social activities, or other responsibilities.

An older child may express a thoughtful preference for a different schedule because the existing arrangement creates practical difficulties. That preference can be relevant to the circumstances, but the legal requirements for modifying the parenting plan must still be addressed.

Parents should not simply tell the child that he or she can stop following the existing schedule. If the current arrangement no longer works, modification may need to be considered through the appropriate legal process.

For additional information about equal parenting schedules, see 50/50 Custody in Florida Explained.

Can a Child Choose Not to See One Parent?

A minor child generally does not have unrestricted authority to cancel court-ordered time-sharing simply by announcing that he or she no longer wants to see one parent.

This issue can become particularly difficult with older teenagers. A parent may believe it is practically impossible to force a 15-, 16-, or 17-year-old into a vehicle or require the teenager to participate willingly in parenting time.

That practical difficulty does not automatically eliminate the court order.

The reasons for the child’s resistance should be examined. A strained parent-child relationship may require a different response from a disagreement about household rules. A genuine safety concern requires still another response.

If the child’s refusal becomes persistent and the existing parenting arrangement is no longer workable, a parent may need to consider whether modification or another legal remedy is appropriate rather than simply allowing continued noncompliance with the parenting plan.

Does a Child’s Preference Matter in a Relocation Case?

A child’s preference can potentially be relevant when one parent proposes relocating with the child, particularly when the child is sufficiently mature to express thoughtful views about the proposed move.

A relocation can affect significant parts of a child’s life, including:

• school and educational programs;
• friends and community relationships;
• extracurricular activities;
• relationships with siblings and extended family;
• transportation and travel;
• the existing time-sharing schedule; and
• the child’s relationship with the parent who is not relocating.

An older child may have strong views about leaving a school, athletic program, established friendships, or extended family. Alternatively, the child may have reasons for wanting to relocate with the parent proposing the move.

The child’s preference does not independently determine whether relocation will be permitted. Florida’s relocation requirements and the other circumstances relevant to the child’s welfare must still be considered.

Greenberg Law provides a more detailed discussion of the legal requirements in Relocation With Children in Florida.

Can a Child’s Preference Be Used to Modify a Parenting Plan?

A child’s preference may be relevant when a parent seeks to modify an existing parenting plan, but the preference does not automatically create a new time-sharing schedule.

Florida law establishes requirements that must be satisfied before a court modifies a parenting arrangement. The court must consider the applicable modification standard as well as the child’s best interests.

For example, a teenager may explain that an existing schedule interferes substantially with school responsibilities, athletics, employment, transportation, or another important part of daily life. Those circumstances may provide context for why the child wants a different arrangement.

In another case, a child’s preference may arise from conflict with a parent’s ordinary household rules and may not demonstrate that the existing parenting plan should be changed.

The child’s preference therefore needs to be evaluated together with the circumstances giving rise to the requested modification.

What If Both Parents Agree With the Child’s Preference?

When both parents agree that a different parenting arrangement would better meet the child’s current needs, they may be able to avoid a contested dispute.

For example, both parents might agree that an older child’s school schedule, transportation needs, extracurricular activities, or employment make the existing time-sharing schedule unnecessarily difficult.

Agreement does not necessarily mean the parents should simply ignore an existing court order and begin following an entirely different arrangement indefinitely.

If the parenting plan needs to change, formally addressing the modification can provide clarity about the new schedule and reduce the possibility of future disagreement over what arrangement is legally controlling.

Parents should also remember that a child’s preference can change over time. A structured parenting plan should focus on the child’s overall needs rather than merely documenting a temporary preference.

Child Preference vs. Child’s Best Interests

The distinction between what a child prefers and what serves the child’s best interests is fundamental to understanding Florida parenting law.

A child’s wishes can therefore be important without requiring the child to carry the burden of deciding between parents.

Common Mistakes Parents Make When a Child Expresses a Preference

When a child says that he or she wants to live with one parent, both parents may react emotionally. How the parents respond can affect the child and may also become relevant if the parenting dispute reaches court.

Telling the Child They Are Old Enough to Choose

Florida law does not establish a particular birthday at which a minor child automatically gains the right to decide where to live. Telling a child, “You’re 14 now, so you can choose,” can create unrealistic expectations and place responsibility for the parenting dispute on the child.

Encouraging the Child to Take Sides

A parent should not pressure the child to support one parent against the other. Children may already feel conflicted about expressing a preference because they care about both parents.

Ignoring What the Child Is Saying

Parents should also avoid the opposite mistake. A child’s preference does not control the case, but the reasons behind it may reveal important concerns involving school, schedules, emotional well-being, family relationships, or safety.

Assuming the Child’s Preference Automatically Changes the Court Order

An existing parenting plan or time-sharing order remains important unless it is properly modified. A child’s request for a different schedule does not automatically replace the existing court order.

Punishing the Child for Expressing a Preference

A child may already feel caught between two parents. Punishing, criticizing, or emotionally pressuring the child for expressing a preference can make an already difficult family situation worse.

Using the Child’s Preference as a Litigation Strategy

The purpose of considering a child’s views is to help determine what serves the child’s best interests. The child should not be turned into a witness, messenger, or advocate simply to improve one parent’s position against the other.

Child Custody and a Child’s Preference in Broward County

Parents in Plantation, Fort Lauderdale, and throughout Broward County are subject to Florida law governing parental responsibility, parenting plans, and time-sharing. Family-law cases in Broward County are handled within the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

A child’s preference may arise in many different types of Broward County parenting disputes. Parents may disagree about an existing time-sharing schedule, a teenager may resist moving between households, one parent may seek modification, or a proposed relocation may cause the child to express strong views about where he or she wants to live.

The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit also provides Family Court Services for Broward County family-law matters. Depending on the case and court orders, available court-related services may assist with issues affecting children and parenting disputes.

Local procedures do not change the fundamental Florida legal standard. A child’s reasonable preference can be considered when appropriate, but the child’s wishes remain part of the broader determination of the child’s best interests.

When Should a Parent Speak With a Florida Child Custody Lawyer?

A child expressing a preference does not necessarily mean that parents need to begin litigation. Children can become frustrated with schedules and household rules, and some disagreements can be resolved without changing a parenting plan.

Legal advice may become particularly important when:

• a child consistently expresses a strong preference to live with one parent;
• an older child refuses to follow the existing time-sharing schedule;
• the parents disagree about whether the child’s preference should affect the parenting plan;
• one parent believes the other is coaching or pressuring the child;
• the child’s preference is connected to possible domestic violence, abuse, neglect, or another safety concern;
• a parent wants to modify an existing parenting plan;
• the child’s preference arises because one parent wants to relocate;
• an existing 50/50 time-sharing arrangement is no longer working;
• one parent is interfering with court-ordered parenting time; or
• a parent is considering whether the child’s views should be presented to the court.

Understanding how Florida law treats a child’s preference can help parents respond appropriately without unnecessarily placing the child in the middle of the dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions About a Child Choosing Which Parent to Live With in Florida

At what age can a child choose which parent to live with in Florida?

Florida law does not establish a specific age at which a minor child automatically receives the right to choose which parent to live with. A court may consider the child’s reasonable preference when the child has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

Can a 12-year-old decide which parent to live with in Florida?

No automatic right to choose arises at age 12. A 12-year-old’s preference may potentially be considered depending on the child’s maturity, understanding, reasons for the preference, and the other circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests.

Can a 13-year-old choose which parent to live with in Florida?

Turning 13 does not give a child the automatic legal authority to select a parent. The child’s preference may be relevant if the court considers the child sufficiently mature and capable of expressing a reasonable preference.

Can a 14-year-old choose which parent to live with in Florida?

A 14-year-old may express a meaningful preference, but age 14 is not an automatic legal threshold. The court considers the child’s preference together with the other factors affecting the child’s best interests.

Can a 16-year-old choose which parent to live with in Florida?

A 16-year-old still does not automatically control the parenting arrangement. However, an older teenager’s maturity and practical circumstances involving school, employment, transportation, activities, and relationships may make the teenager’s views particularly relevant.

Does a teenager get more say than a younger child?

Potentially. An older or more mature child’s preference may sometimes receive greater consideration, but Florida law does not assign a predetermined amount of weight based solely on age. The individual child’s intelligence, understanding, experience, and reasons for the preference matter.

Does a Florida judge have to follow a teenager’s preference?

No. A teenager’s preference can be considered, but the judge must determine the child’s best interests based on the applicable Florida law and the circumstances of the case.

Can a child tell the judge which parent they want to live with?

A child’s views may be presented to the court when appropriate, but parents should not assume that a child can simply appear before the judge and decide the case. The involvement of minor children in family-law proceedings is handled carefully.

Can a child refuse to visit the other parent in Florida?

A child’s refusal does not automatically cancel court-ordered time-sharing. The reasons for the refusal can be important, particularly when the issue involves persistent family conflict, emotional concerns, or allegations affecting the child’s safety.

What if my child wants to live with me because the other parent has stricter rules?

A preference based primarily on avoiding ordinary household rules or discipline may be evaluated differently from a preference involving school stability, significant family circumstances, emotional well-being, or legitimate safety concerns.

What if my child is afraid to go to the other parent’s home?

A child’s statement involving fear should be taken seriously, especially when the concern involves possible domestic violence, abuse, neglect, threats, or another danger. Depending on the circumstances, prompt legal action may be appropriate.

Can one parent tell the child that they are old enough to decide?

A parent should not tell a minor child that reaching a particular age automatically gives the child authority to disregard an existing parenting plan. Florida law does not establish a specific age at which a minor takes control of the time-sharing decision.

Can a child’s preference change an existing parenting plan?

A child’s preference may be relevant to a request for modification, but it does not automatically change an existing court order. The legal requirements for modification must still be satisfied.

Does a child’s preference matter in a 50/50 time-sharing case?

It can. A child’s reasonable preference may be relevant when evaluating an existing or proposed equal time-sharing arrangement, but the preference remains part of the broader best-interests analysis.

Can a child decide whether to relocate with a parent?

No. A child’s views may be relevant to a relocation dispute depending on the child’s maturity and circumstances, but the child does not independently determine whether the relocation will occur.

What should I do if I believe the other parent is coaching our child?

Avoid responding by coaching the child yourself. Parents should keep the child out of litigation strategy, document legitimate concerns, communicate carefully, and consider obtaining legal advice about the appropriate way to address suspected pressure or manipulation.

How Greenberg Law Can Help When a Child Wants a Different Parenting Arrangement

When a child says that he or she wants to live with one parent, the situation can become emotionally difficult for everyone involved. One parent may believe the child’s preference reflects legitimate concerns, while the other may believe the child is reacting to household rules, outside influences, or pressure from the other parent.

Greenberg Law can help parents understand how a child’s preference fits within Florida’s broader rules governing parental responsibility, parenting plans, and time-sharing.

Depending on the circumstances, Greenberg Law can assist with issues involving:

• a child’s expressed preference about where to live;
• existing parenting plans and time-sharing schedules;
• 50/50 time-sharing disputes;
• requests to modify an existing parenting plan;
• older children or teenagers who refuse to participate in time-sharing;
• concerns that one parent is coaching, pressuring, or improperly influencing the child;
• domestic violence, abuse, or other child-safety concerns;
• relocation disputes that affect the child’s home, school, and relationships;
• enforcement of existing parenting orders; and
• questions about whether and how the child’s views should be presented to the court.

The goal should not be to turn the child into the decision-maker or require the child to choose between parents. The child’s views should instead be considered in the appropriate legal context while keeping the child’s welfare at the center of the parenting dispute.

Speak With a Broward County Child Custody Attorney

If your child has expressed a strong preference about where to live, refuses to follow an existing time-sharing schedule, or you and the other parent disagree about whether the parenting plan should change, legal guidance can help you understand how Florida law applies to your circumstances.

These disputes can become particularly complicated when an older child strongly resists the existing schedule, one parent believes the other is influencing the child, or the child’s preference is connected to relocation, domestic violence, or another significant change in circumstances.

Greenberg Law represents parents in Plantation, Fort Lauderdale, and throughout Broward County, Florida in matters involving parental responsibility, parenting plans, time-sharing, modification, enforcement, and other child custody disputes.

A child’s preference can matter. The important question is how that preference fits within the child’s overall best interests and the requirements of Florida law.