QUINCE, J.
Shawn M. Arthur seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Arthur v. Arthur, 987 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with three decisions of the First District Court of Appeal, Sylvester v. Sylvester, 992 So.2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Janousek v. Janousek, 616 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); and Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Based on our reasoning below, we quash the Second District's decision in Arthur to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion, and approve the First District's decisions in Sylvester, Janousek, and Martinez to the extent that they are consistent with our analysis and holding.
In a dissolution of marriage action, the trial court granted shared parental responsibility, designating Josette A. Arthur (the Wife) as the primary residential parent. Shawn M. Arthur (the Husband) was granted reasonable visitation of the child. See Arthur v. Arthur, 987 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Moreover, and most pertinent to our decision in this case, the trial court authorized the Wife to permanently relocate with the parties' minor child to the state of Michigan after the child reached the age of three. At the time of trial, the minor child was sixteen months old. See id. In granting the Wife's relocation request, the trial court reasoned that the relocation was proper because the Wife proposed to move to the area where she grew up and had family, and the area was close to the Husband's extended family. See id. at 213-14. Regarding its reasons for delaying the relocation until the child reached the age of three, the trial court explained:
Id. at 214.
On appeal, the Husband argued that the trial court erred by determining that the Wife could relocate with the child approximately twenty months after the final hearing. More specifically, the Husband asserted that the trial court's ruling was a prospective determination of the child's best interest and that the court lacked authority to make such a determination. See Arthur, 987 So.2d at 214. Relying on the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Janousek v. Janousek, 616 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the Husband contended that the trial court was required to make a determination regarding relocation and the child's best interests at the present time and to decide the issue with finality. See Arthur, 987 So.2d at 214. The Second District Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the trial court did not exceed its authority in granting the relocation request upon the child reaching the age of three. See id. The district court
The Husband petitioned this Court for discretionary review of the Second District's decision in Arthur. His petition was based on express and direct conflict with the First District's decisions in Sylvester, Janousek, and Martinez. We granted review to resolve this conflict.
Section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), titled "Parental relocation with a child," establishes the procedures involved in the relocation of a child, whether relocation is sought after agreement between the parties or alternatively contested by one party. In the case of a contested relocation, the Legislature has stated that "[n]o presumption shall arise in favor of or against a request to relocate with the child when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or other person." § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). Instead, section 61.13001(8) states:
In addition to the burden that the parties must meet, the statute outlines several factors a trial court must consider before reaching a decision on a parent's request for permanent relocation. Section 61.13001(7) provides that the court shall evaluate:
Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2006), requires trial courts to "determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]." § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (2006). In turn, the UCCJEA states:
§ 61.507, Fla. Stat. (2006). It is this portion of the UCCJEA that the First District relied upon in Martinez, the decision guiding the court's opinion in Janousek, in vacating the trial court's order that required in part that (1) the husband be designated the interim primary residential parent of the child and (2) both parents return to the court in two years where the court would make a final and binding decision. Martinez, 573 So.2d at 39-40. The district court in Martinez indicated its general preference for finality in trial court judgments because "a litigant is entitled to know that a judgment determining his rights is final and will not be disturbed, except on appeal, or under the conditions prescribed by a rule." Id. at 40 (quoting Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Dinkines, 278 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)). Further, the court stated:
Martinez, 573 So.2d at 40. Noting that nothing in the record precluded the trial court from rendering a final decision at the time of the hearing, the district court concluded that the ruling "erroneously deprived the final judgment of the statutorily-required finality." Id. at 41.
The First District reiterated this line of reasoning in Janousek in reviewing a trial court order that granted a wife primary residential responsibility and permitted her to relocate two minor children after a five-year period. See 616 So.2d at 131-32. Quoting its Martinez decision, the district court reasoned that "when a cause involving child custody is presented to the trial court, `the trial court is required to make a final determination on that issue at that time.'" Id. at 132 (quoting Martinez, 573 So.2d at 40). The district court noted that "[n]o evidence was presented which would support a determination that a substantial change in circumstances would occur at the end of this five-year period or that such a relocation would promote the welfare of the children." Id. Accordingly, the district court vacated the relocation provision in the final judgment. See id.
More recently, the First District decided Sylvester, a case with facts similar to those presented in the instant case. In Sylvester, the trial court granted the wife's relocation request but delayed relocation until the child reached five years of age and/or started kindergarten, finding that it was not in the best interest of the child to be immediately separated from the husband. At the time of the hearing the child was three years old. See 992 So.2d at 296. The trial court determined that current relocation was not in the best interest of the child because it believed that the child needed more time to acclimate to the marital dissolution. Rather, the court found that the child would be emotionally and psychologically capable of handling a deferred relocation. See id. at 296-97. On appeal, the First District reversed the trial court's order, holding that the trial court erred in permitting relocation two years from the date of the hearing. Id. at 296. Noting its decision in Janousek, the district court found that "the proper cause of action is to determine whether relocation is presently appropriate and consider future relocation based on the circumstances existing at that time." Id. at 298. The district court recognized its disagreement with the Second District's decision in Arthur, to the extent that Arthur allowed a trial court "to look into its crystal ball and determine whether relocation would be in the best interest in the future." Id. The court further noted that "[i]t is difficult enough to determine the present emotional and psychological needs of a child; it is impossible to speculate what those needs will be in two years." Id. at 297.
Relying on the above case law, the Husband alleges two errors with the trial court's judgment. First, he argues that because there was no evidence presented to the trial court as to the child's best interests twenty months after the final hearing, the trial court acted beyond its authority in making a prospective finding of the minor child's best interests. In support of this argument, he claims that the trial court should have determined the child's best interests as of the time of the final hearing, not the child's best interests twenty months later. He alleges that the trial court's conclusion was inconsistent with its determination that such relocation could not occur until twenty months after the final hearing and its findings concerning the impact of relocation on the child's
Upon review of the Husband's arguments and the well-reasoned analyses in the First District's opinions in Martinez, Janousek, and Sylvester, we conclude that a best interests determination in petitions for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. In this case, the trial court authorized the relocation based in part on its conclusion that relocation would be in the best interests of the child twenty months from the date of the hearing. Such a "prospective-based" analysis is unsound. Indeed, a trial court is not equipped with a "crystal ball" that enables it to prophetically determine whether future relocation is in the best interests of a child. Any one of the various factors outlined in section 61.13001(7) that the trial court is required to consider, such as the financial stability of a parent or the suitability of the new location for the child, could change within the extended time period given by the court before relocation. Because trial courts are unable to predict whether a change in any of the statutory factors will occur, the proper review of a petition for relocation entails a best interests determination at the time of the final hearing, i.e. a "present-based" analysis.
Although the trial court in this case did not utilize this "present-based" analysis, we conclude that if it had done so, the court would have denied the relocation request. Our reading of the order indicates that the court did not agree that a relocation at the time of the hearing was in the best interests of the child. We find the most telling phrase of the order to be the court's statement that "[b]ut for the Court's concern for the Husband's ability to bond with his son, the Wife's relocation would have been granted without further delay." In its consideration of subsection (b) of section 61.13001(7), the court found that "[r]equiring the Wife to wait until the child turns three (3) years old allows the Husband and child the time necessary to form a lasting bond with each other." Thus, although the court may have favored relocation once the child reached three years of age, it is clear that the court found that relocation was not in the best interests of the child at the time of the hearing. Therefore, the petition for relocation should have been denied.
Based on our determination that the trial court's prospective best interest determination was erroneous, we conclude that it is unnecessary to address the Husband's claim of trial court error. Thus, we make no decision as to whether trial court's grant of relocation in this case improperly shifted the burden of proof to the Husband in a future attempt to prevent relocation.
Based on the above analysis, we quash the Second District's decision in Arthur to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion, and approve the decisions of the First District in Martinez, Janousek, and Sylvester to the extent they are consistent with the foregoing opinion. We vacate the provision in the final judgment of dissolution permitting the Wife to relocate after twenty months and remand this case to the Second District with directions to remand to the trial court to deny the Wife's request for relocation.
As to the Wife's motion for appellate attorneys' fees, we direct the district court to remand the issue to the trial court for a determination on the motion. If the Wife establishes her entitlement pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2006), and Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997), the trial court is authorized to award her all or a portion of the reasonable appellate attorneys' fees incurred for representation before this Court. We deny without prejudice the Wife's motion for appellate court costs, as this motion should be filed with the appropriate trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a).
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
