Giacomaro v. Brossia — Court Reverses Custody/Relocation Decision For Lack Of Evidence

Child custody and timesharing disputes, especially those involving relocation out of state, rank among the most contentious issues in family law. Under Florida’s statutory framework, any relocation request must be grounded in the child’s best interests, assessed based on current, competent evidence, not predictions about a parent’s future stability or lifestyle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal drove that point home in its 2024 ruling in Giacomaro v. Brossia. 

Background of the case 

The child, born in September 2017 in Michigan, moved with the mother to Florida when she was an infant. In July 2021, the father filed a paternity petition in Florida. At that time, the mother had already obtained an injunction for protection against domestic violence against the father. The mother responded with a counter-petition seeking exclusive timesharing and child support.

A temporary order granted shared parental responsibility and a limited timesharing schedule while the case was pending. As litigation progressed, tensions escalated: there were contempt motions, disputes over child support payments, and multiple instances where the mother allegedly obstructed the father’s access to the child. A money judgment was entered against the father for unpaid support.

Despite these complications, at a final hearing in September 2023, the trial court awarded the father majority timesharing and ordered the minor child to relocate from Florida to Michigan to live primarily with him during the school year, while preserving continuing contact with the mother.

The appeal 

On appeal, the Fourth DCA reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial judge had made improper speculative findings, essentially “predicting” that the father’s living situation, personal stability, and capacity to parent would improve, rather than relying on existing evidence to show those conditions.

For example, the record showed that the father lacked a valid driver’s license due to a prior DUI conviction; yet the court assumed he would soon get it back and rely on friends or ride-sharing services for school transportation. There was no concrete testimony supporting those assumptions. The court also speculated that substance use issues and household stability would resolve, but without any concrete evidence.

Further, the court discounted the mother’s established stable home environment, the child’s connection to school, community, and relatives in Florida, and the testimony of the court-appointed guardian ad litem, who believed relocation was not in the child’s best interest.

Since the trial court’s decision rested on “what might happen” rather than “what is,” the appellate court found an abuse of discretion. It reversed the order and remanded the case for a new hearing.

Talk to an Orlando, FL, Child Custody Lawyer Today 

Greater Orlando Family Law represents the interests of parents during custody battles with their co-parents. Call our Orlando family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.