Case Name: Layton E. NORRIS, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Amie C. HECKERMAN, f/k/a Amie C. Norris, Former Wife, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 972 So. 2d 1098
Docket Number: No. 1D07-2289
Parties: Layton E. NORRIS, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Amie C. HECKERMAN, f/k/a Amie C. Norris, Former Wife, Appellee.
Judges: WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 972
Pages: 1098–1100

Head Matter:
Layton E. NORRIS, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Amie C. HECKERMAN, f/k/a Amie C. Norris, Former Wife, Appellee.
No. 1D07-2289.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 28, 2008.
Neal L. Betancourt of Rotchford & Be-tancourt, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Amie C. Heckerman, pro se, Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Layton Norris appeals an order of the trial court granting Amie Heckerman's request to relocate with their minor children to Chicago. We affirm.
The parties were married in 1996, had three children, and divorced in Georgia in 2005. The former wife remarried and was living in Jacksonville, Florida, with her husband and the three children, when the former husband moved there in 2006 and began exercising weekly visitation with the children. When the former wife decided to move to Chicago, Illinois, with the children and her husband, the former husband sought emergency relief denying the relocation. The trial court concluded that it did not have the authority to modify the Georgia judgment. On the contrary, the court did have such authority pursuant to section 61.516(2), Florida Statutes (2007), of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
The court, however, issued an alternate ruling, which we affirm, approving the former wife's relocation pursuant to the factors enumerated in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2006). Under this provision, there is no presumption in favor of or against relocation. The burden of proof is on the parent wishing to relocate to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interests of the children. § 61.13001(8), Fla. Stat. (2006). If the initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the children's best interests. Id.
An appellate court reviews the trial court's determination regarding relocation of minor children for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Manyan v. Manyari, 958 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So.2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Although the trial court did not make certain critical findings regarding several of the statutory factors, this was the result of the parties' failure to present evidence on such factors. Based upon the limited evidence before it, the trial court properly exercised its discretion by granting the mother's request to relocate with the children.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ" concur.
POLSTON, J., dissents with opinion.