Modification of child custody and visitation orders require a substantial, material change of circumstances since the Court's prior custody decision. Additionally, the movant must demonstrate that the children's best interest justify a change in custody. In Chamberlain v. Eisinger, the Florida Court of Appeal had a case before it in which a judgment was entered in Maryland. The Maryland trial court gave the Mother custody of the four children. After the divorce was granted the Father moved to Florida. In 2008, the Mother and Father agreed that the Father would have custody of the oldest daughter. In 2009, the Mother and Father agreed that the Mother would have custody of the youngest daughter and the two sons. In 2010, the Mother moved to Florida. The same month that the Mother moved to Florida, the trial court in Maryland entered a new order specifying times and dates for visitation. However, the new order was based upon the premise that the Mother and the younger children were living in Maryland.
In a divorce case, captioned Brooks v. Brooks, the Father appealed the lower court's ruling denying his motion for contempt and ordered him to file a petition to relocate. The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling and explained why. A time-sharing plan was entered by the Court when the parties were divorced in 2011. Under the time-sharing plan, the Mother and Father had shared parental responsibility over the children. The children lived with the Mother during the week and with the Father every other weekend. The time-sharing plan required that if either party traveled out of state with the children, that party must so inform the other party 30 days in advance and provide a travel itinerary. After the divorce, the Father moved from Sarasota to Hallandale Beach. The Mother took two out-of-state trips with the children and did not provide the Father with notice of one of the trips or a detailed itinerary. The Father moved to hold the Mother in contempt of court, and the Mother moved to hold the Father in contempt for moving to Hallandale Beach without filing a petition to relocate. After a hearing on both motions, the lower court denied both motions for contempt and ordered the Father to file a petition to relocate. The Father argued to the Florida Court of Appeal that it was improper for the trial court to deny his motion for contempt after he clearly established that the Mother violated the time-sharing plan.