SB 1506 creates a new civil remedy when a parent does not follow a court-ordered time-sharing schedule in a parenting plan without proper cause. Under the bill, the nonoffending parent could sue the parent who failed to comply and seek compensatory and punitive damages. The measure also allows the accused parent to raise an affirmative defense based on the defenses available under Florida’s interference-with-custody statute, s. 787.03(4).
The bill applies retroactively to January 1, 2014, and would take effect July 1, 2025. In practical terms, it would add a damages-based enforcement option to Florida family law for violations of parenting time-sharing orders, supplementing existing court enforcement tools and potentially affecting parents involved in custody and visitation disputes.
Impact
The bill amends s. 61.13, Florida Statutes, which governs child support, parenting, and time-sharing, by adding a new subsection authorizing a private civil cause of action for noncompliance with court-ordered parenting plans. It could expose a parent who withholds or interferes with scheduled time-sharing to compensatory and punitive damages, while also incorporating defenses tied to the criminal custody-interference statute. The retroactivity provision could affect past disputes dating back to 2014, potentially expanding litigation exposure in family law cases.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening enforcement of parenting plans and protecting the rights of the nonoffending parent, suggesting a generally pro-enforcement posture. However, the inclusion of punitive damages and retroactive application indicates the bill could be viewed as aggressive or litigation-expanding by those concerned about family-law disputes.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the creation of a new damages remedy in domestic relations cases, the availability of punitive damages, and the retroactive application back to 2014. Supporters would likely argue that the bill gives parents a meaningful remedy when court-ordered time-sharing is ignored, while opponents may contend that it could increase conflict, encourage lawsuits in already contentious custody matters, and punish conduct that may have involved legitimate safety or custody concerns. The affirmative defense reference to s. 787.03(4) suggests that parents claiming justification, such as protection-related reasons, would be central to any dispute over liability.