H1385 creates a new civil cause of action called the “Parental Abduction Act” for situations in which one parent unlawfully abducts a child from the other parent and keeps the child away for more than 30 consecutive days after the last lawful time-sharing period. The bill defines key terms such as “child,” “parent,” and “unlawful abduction,” and applies only where the child is subject to a court order for custody or time-sharing under Florida law.
Under the bill, a parent who proves unlawful abduction by a preponderance of the evidence may recover treble actual damages, a minimum of $1,000, and reasonable attorney fees and costs in both trial and appellate courts. The 30-day period begins when the abduction starts and continues until the child is returned, even if the abducting parent later has a scheduled time-sharing period. The bill also sets a two-year statute of limitations, tolls that period while the child remains unlawfully abducted, and requires the case to be heard in the family law division handling the underlying family case.
Impact
The bill would add a new civil remedy to Florida Statutes, creating s. 772.111 and expanding the remedies available to parents in custody and time-sharing disputes. It would affect family law litigants, allowing a parent to sue for monetary damages when the other parent unlawfully withholds a child, while also creating protections for defendants who can show a reasonable belief that the child was in imminent danger of domestic violence, sexual violence, abuse, abandonment, or neglect. The bill also shifts venue/procedure by requiring these cases to be assigned to the family law division already handling the related case.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support in the House, passing the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee 14-0, the Judiciary Committee 20-0, and the full House 108-0. The unanimous votes suggest lawmakers generally viewed the measure favorably as a targeted remedy for serious parental abduction situations. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows strong consensus rather than detailed debate.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is between giving parents a stronger civil remedy for wrongful child removal and preserving defenses for parents who act out of concern for a child’s safety. The affirmative defense for reasonable belief of imminent danger from domestic violence, sexual violence, or abuse/neglect is likely intended to address that concern. Another possible point of concern is the bill’s damages structure—treble damages, minimum damages, and fee shifting—which could be seen as a strong deterrent but also as potentially punitive in family disputes. However, the unanimous votes indicate no recorded opposition in the available legislative history.