Florida Form 12.995(b) is the Relocation/Long-Distance Parenting Plan, and you fill it out by completing every section that applies to your family, signing it before a notary, and filing it with the clerk of the circuit court in the county handling your case. The form covers parental responsibility, decision-making, a long-distance time-sharing schedule, transportation costs, and communication rules when parents live more than 50 miles apart.
The problem is that a poorly drafted plan invites court rejection, contempt motions, and even loss of time-sharing. According to the Florida Department of Health vital statistics report, Florida processes roughly 75,000 divorces per year, and family law judges report that incomplete parenting plans are among the top three reasons orders get bounced back to filers.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📝 How to complete every section of Form 12.995(b) without missing critical fields
- ⚖️ How Florida’s relocation statute § 61.13001 interacts with your long-distance plan
- 👨👩👧 Real examples of named parents using the form for military, job, and remarriage moves
- 🚫 The 7 most common mistakes that trigger judge rejections and contempt risks
- 💡 The pros, cons, do’s, and don’ts of filing pro se versus hiring counsel
What Florida Form 12.995(b) Actually Is
Florida Form 12.995(b), titled the Parenting Plan for Relocation/Long-Distance Parenting, is one of three official parenting plan templates approved by the Florida Supreme Court Family Law Rules Committee. The form is the legal blueprint that tells the court how two parents who live far apart will share parental responsibility, decision-making, time-sharing, and communication for their minor child or children. Florida courts require a parenting plan in every case involving minor children under Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b), whether the parents agree or fight about the terms.
The plain-English meaning is simple. The form is a fill-in-the-blank contract that becomes a court order once a judge signs it. Every choice you make on the form binds you and the other parent until a judge changes it.
The consequence of filing the wrong version of the form is real. If you live within 50 miles of the other parent, you should use Form 12.995(a), the standard plan. If domestic violence or substance abuse is at issue, Form 12.995(c), the safety-focused plan, applies.
A real-world example shows the stakes. Maria, a mother in Jacksonville, used the long-distance form even though the father lived 22 miles away in Orange Park, and the judge ordered her to refile on the standard form, delaying her final judgment by 47 days.
A common misconception is that the long-distance plan only applies to out-of-state moves. The form actually applies any time parents live more than 50 miles apart, even within Florida, as the Florida Courts self-help portal makes clear.
When You Must Use the Long-Distance Version
You must use Form 12.995(b) when one parent already lives more than 50 miles from the other, or when one parent plans to relocate that far under Florida Statute § 61.13001. The 50-mile measurement is straight-line distance, not driving miles, and the 60-day rule means a relocating parent must give written notice or seek court permission at least 60 days before the move. Filing the long-distance form when a standard plan is needed wastes filing time, and skipping it when you should file it can void your final order.
The consequence of missing the 60-day notice is severe. A parent who relocates without filing notice or getting consent risks a contempt finding, a court order to return the child, and even loss of time-sharing under § 61.13001(3)(e).
For example, Daniel, a father stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, received PCS orders to Pensacola, which sits 442 miles away. He filed Form 12.995(b) along with a Notice of Intent to Relocate 75 days before his report date and avoided contempt.
How the Relocation Statute Shapes Your Plan
Florida’s relocation rule under § 61.13001 is the legal backbone behind every long-distance plan. The statute defines relocation as a change in the principal residence of a parent or other person for at least 60 consecutive days that is more than 50 miles from the prior residence. The statute requires either a written agreement signed by both parents and any non-parent with time-sharing, or a petition to relocate filed with the court. Without one of those two paths, the move is unlawful.
Florida courts apply the best-interest factors in § 61.13(3) plus the eleven relocation factors in § 61.13001(7). Judges weigh the child’s age, the relationship with each parent, the reason for the move, and whether the move improves the child’s quality of life. The plain-English version is that the relocating parent must prove the move is in the child’s best interest, not just the parent’s.
The consequence of skipping the statutory factors inside your plan is that the judge may reject the plan as legally insufficient. A real-world example is Renee, a Miami nurse who took a job offer in Charlotte, North Carolina; she addressed every § 61.13001(7) factor in her parenting plan and her petition was granted on the first hearing.
A common misconception is that a child over 13 can simply choose where to live. Florida law lets the judge consider the child’s preference under § 61.13(3)(i), but the choice is not binding, and the parenting plan still controls until modified.
Key Florida Cases That Shape Long-Distance Plans
Two appellate decisions guide every relocation parenting plan filed today. In Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court rejected the so-called prospective best interest analysis, holding that a trial court cannot approve a future relocation based on speculation about what will be best years from now. The decision means your plan must reflect current circumstances and the move must be ready to evaluate at the time of trial.
The second key ruling is Berrebbi v. Clarke, 290 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), which reaffirmed that a parent who moves without statutory compliance can lose majority time-sharing. The lesson is that the long-distance parenting plan is not a substitute for the relocation petition; it is a companion document.
For example, Carlos, a Tampa father, attached his proposed Form 12.995(b) to his petition to relocate to Houston, and the court found his plan compliant with both Arthur and § 61.13001 because it was tied to a job offer letter dated within 30 days of filing.
Section-by-Section Walkthrough of Form 12.995(b)
The form runs roughly 12 sections in the current 2025 revision, and every section deserves attention. Skipping a section invites a judge to fill in the blanks for you, which usually favors neither parent. Below is a line-by-line guide.
Caption, Case Number, and Parties
The top of the form requires the circuit, county, case number, and the full legal names of the petitioner and respondent. The case number must match the original dissolution or paternity case exactly, including the division code. A wrong case number routes the form to the wrong judge, and the clerk may reject it on intake.
The consequence of misnaming a parent is that enforcement later becomes harder, because the order does not match the person bound by it. For example, Jenna listed her maiden name on the form even though her divorce decree used her married name, and the judge required an amended plan before signing.
A common misconception is that the caption is just a formality. In truth, the caption controls jurisdiction, venue, and enforcement, all of which are central to a long-distance plan that crosses county or state lines.
Section I: Parental Responsibility
This section asks whether parents share parental responsibility, share it with decision-making authority to one parent, or whether one parent has sole parental responsibility. Shared parental responsibility is the Florida default under § 61.13(2)(c)(2), and sole responsibility requires proof that shared responsibility would be detrimental to the child. You must check one box and explain any carve-outs, such as one parent having final say on medical or religious choices.
The consequence of leaving this section blank is that the judge defaults to shared responsibility, which may not match what you negotiated. For example, Priya and her ex agreed she would have final say on schooling because she was relocating with the child to a magnet school district, and they wrote that carve-out into Section I.
A common misconception is that sole parental responsibility means the other parent loses time-sharing. The two are separate concepts; a parent can have time-sharing without decision-making power.
Section II: Day-to-Day Decisions
Section II covers routine choices like bedtime, diet, and screen time. The form lets each parent make day-to-day decisions during their own time-sharing. You may also list specific shared expectations, such as homework rules or extracurricular attendance.
The consequence of leaving this vague is constant micro-conflict, which judges hate to police. For example, Trevor and his ex wrote that the child must complete homework before screen time at both homes, which ended weekly text fights.
A common misconception is that a parent can dictate the other parent’s household rules. Florida courts almost never enforce lifestyle clauses unless they affect the child’s safety.
Section III: Education Decisions
Education is one of the four major decision categories under Florida law. The form asks who chooses the school, who attends conferences, and how to handle tutoring or special-needs services. Long-distance plans must address how the non-residential parent participates in conferences by phone or video.
The consequence of failing to specify the school is that both parents may enroll the child in different schools, triggering an emergency motion. For example, Ashley listed the specific Orange County public school zone in her plan, which prevented the father from enrolling the child in a Volusia County school after his move.
A common misconception is that the residential parent always picks the school. Under shared parental responsibility, both parents must agree, and the court resolves disputes based on the child’s best interest.
Section IV: Health Care Decisions
This section handles routine, urgent, and emergency medical care, plus mental health, dental, and orthodontic decisions. You must list the primary doctor and dentist or commit to selecting them within a certain time. Long-distance parents should designate which parent’s geographic area governs the providers.
The consequence of leaving providers undefined is dueling appointments and insurance chaos. For example, Mike, a Pensacola father whose child lived in Tampa, wrote that the mother selects routine providers in Hillsborough County, while he covers urgent care during his time-sharing.
A common misconception is that either parent can authorize any procedure. Major medical decisions, including elective surgery, require joint consent unless the plan says otherwise.
Section V: Other Responsibilities
Section V lets you allocate religion, extracurriculars, and any other major decision category. You can split decision authority by topic, such as one parent handling religious upbringing and the other handling sports. The form gives drafting space, so use it.
The consequence of ignoring this section is that judges may impose neutrality, which sometimes prevents religious upbringing entirely. For example, Ruth wrote that she had final say on Jewish religious education while the father had final say on summer camp, and the court approved both clauses.
A common misconception is that religion cannot be in a parenting plan. Florida courts uphold religious-upbringing clauses as long as they protect the child’s relationship with both parents under Mendez v. Mendez, 527 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Section VI: Time-Sharing Schedule
This is the heart of the long-distance plan. The form provides space for a regular schedule, holidays, school breaks, summer, and birthdays. Long-distance schedules typically give the non-residential parent the bulk of school breaks, including most of summer, while the residential parent has school-year weekdays.
The consequence of vague time-sharing is that the parent picking up the child cannot enforce the schedule, and law enforcement will not intervene without specifics. For example, Sofia and her ex wrote that the father has the child from June 15 through August 10 each summer plus every spring break in odd years, leaving no room for argument.
A common misconception is that long-distance plans must give each parent equal time. Florida law no longer presumes 50/50 time-sharing in long-distance cases because travel logistics make it impractical, even after the 2023 amendments to § 61.13.
Section VII: Holiday Schedule
The holiday grid divides Thanksgiving, winter break, spring break, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, and other major dates. Most plans alternate by even and odd years. Long-distance plans should also assign travel days so the holiday actually starts and ends on time.
The consequence of skipping holidays is that the regular schedule controls, and one parent often gets every Christmas. For example, Andre alternated Thanksgiving and Christmas by even and odd years and split spring break by first and second halves, which a judge praised at the final hearing.
A common misconception is that holidays automatically trump regular time-sharing. They only trump the regular schedule if the plan says so, which is why you must write it explicitly.
Section VIII: Transportation and Exchange
Long-distance plans must address who drives or flies the child, who pays, and where the exchange happens. The form asks about airline travel, including whether the child flies as an unaccompanied minor and who books the ticket. You may also split costs by income share or alternate years.
The consequence of leaving this blank is endless fights over airfare and gas money. For example, Lara and her ex split airfare 70/30 based on their income share and used Tampa International Airport as the exchange point, which the judge approved on the first review.
A common misconception is that the relocating parent always pays for travel. Courts often shift cost to the relocating parent under § 61.13001(7)(j), but the parties can agree otherwise.
Section IX: Communication
Section IX covers phone, video, email, and text contact between the child and the non-residential parent. Long-distance plans should set specific days, times, and platforms, such as FaceTime every Tuesday and Thursday at 7 p.m. The form also lets you address access to school portals and medical records.
The consequence of vague communication terms is gatekeeping, which is one of the top complaints judges hear in modification cases. For example, Brandon wrote that he gets a 15-minute video call every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern time, with the mother responsible for ensuring the child is available.
A common misconception is that the residential parent can monitor every call. Florida courts disfavor recorded or monitored calls absent a safety concern.
Section X: Designation for Other Legal Purposes
This section names the residential parent for school, government benefits, and tax purposes. The designation does not affect parental responsibility or time-sharing under § 61.13(2)(b)(3), but it controls school zoning and federal forms. Long-distance plans almost always designate the parent whose home anchors the school year.
The consequence of misdesignation is that the wrong parent gets school records or tax credits. For example, Olivia designated herself for school purposes because the child attended school in her Broward County zone, and the IRS dependency claim followed her under their separate written agreement.
A common misconception is that this section determines child support. Child support is governed by § 61.30 and the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, not by the residential designation.
Section XI: Methods and Technologies for Parent-Child Contact
Section XI lets you list every approved tool, including FaceTime, Zoom, WhatsApp, school portals, and shared calendar apps like OurFamilyWizard. Listing tools by name avoids future disputes over what counts as reasonable contact. Many judges encourage co-parenting apps for high-conflict cases.
The consequence of skipping this section is that one parent may block contact through unfamiliar apps. For example, Tom and his ex used OurFamilyWizard for messaging and a shared Google Calendar for schedules, which cut their court appearances in half.
A common misconception is that text messages are enough. Courts increasingly want a documented record, which co-parenting apps provide automatically.
Section XII: Other Provisions and Signatures
The final section is a catch-all for anything not covered above, including right of first refusal, relocation triggers, dispute resolution, and modification thresholds. Both parents must sign in front of a notary, and the judge signs at the bottom. Without notarization, the clerk will reject the form.
The consequence of an unsigned plan is that the court cannot enter it as an order, which delays your final judgment. For example, Hannah added a right-of-first-refusal clause requiring the other parent to be offered care before a babysitter for any absence over 12 hours, and the judge approved it.
A common misconception is that you can fax or email a signed plan without notarization. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285 still requires notarized signatures for parenting plans.
Three Common Scenarios Walked Through
Below are the three most popular scenarios that drive Form 12.995(b) filings, presented as Florida judges actually see them.
Scenario 1: Military PCS Orders
| Parent’s Move | Plan Outcome |
|---|---|
| Active-duty father receives PCS orders from Jacksonville to San Diego with 90-day report date | Father files Form 12.995(b) plus Notice of Intent to Relocate, gets summer time-sharing, and uses the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to stay enforcement during deployment |
| Mother in Tallahassee opposes the move citing § 61.13001(7) factors | Court approves the move because the father proves the assignment is non-negotiable and the child’s quality of life improves with on-base schooling |
| Plan includes 60 summer days, alternating spring breaks, and weekly FaceTime | Judge enters plan, and father splits airfare 70/30 based on income share |
Scenario 2: Job-Transfer Relocation
| Parent’s Move | Plan Outcome |
|---|---|
| Mother in Orlando accepts a promotion in Atlanta with a 30% salary increase | Mother files petition to relocate plus Form 12.995(b) showing the offer letter and new school district data |
| Father objects, claiming the move harms his weekend time-sharing | Court applies Arthur v. Arthur and reviews current circumstances, finds the move improves the child’s economic stability, and approves it |
| Plan gives father 8 weeks each summer plus every Thanksgiving | Judge orders mother to fund 60% of travel costs because she is the relocating parent under § 61.13001(7)(j) |
Scenario 3: Remarriage Relocation
| Parent’s Move | Plan Outcome |
|---|---|
| Father in Miami remarries and moves to Naples, 125 miles away, to join his new spouse | Father files Form 12.995(b) showing the marriage certificate, new home, and a school comparison chart |
| Mother consents in writing, signs the plan, and both file it as an agreed order | Court enters the plan without an evidentiary hearing because § 61.13001(2)(d) allows agreed relocations by written consent |
| Plan includes alternating weekends, half of summer, and a 50/50 holiday split | Parents split travel by alternating weekends, with each parent driving one way to the I-75 midpoint |
Mistakes to Avoid
Filing parents make the same errors over and over. Each mistake below carries a real consequence that can derail your case.
- Filing the wrong parenting plan version, which forces refiling and delays the final judgment by 30 to 60 days
- Skipping the 60-day relocation notice under § 61.13001, which can lead to contempt and a court-ordered return of the child
- Leaving holiday and summer schedules vague, which causes the regular schedule to override holidays and forces emergency motions
- Forgetting to notarize signatures, which causes the clerk to reject the filing on intake under Rule 12.285
- Failing to address travel cost allocation, which leads to ongoing fee disputes and contempt motions
- Designating the wrong parent for school purposes, which causes the child to be unenrolled mid-year
- Ignoring the right of first refusal, which lets either parent leave the child with third parties without notifying the other parent
- Writing lifestyle clauses Florida courts will not enforce, such as dictating the other parent’s diet or partners
- Submitting handwritten edits in the margins instead of typing changes, which judges read as unprofessional and unclear
- Using the long-distance form for parents under 50 miles apart, which signals to the judge you did not read the instructions
Do’s and Don’ts
The form is unforgiving, so the habits below matter.
- Do download the current PDF from flcourts.gov because earlier versions get rejected
- Do attach a calendar showing the next 12 months of time-sharing because judges appreciate visual clarity
- Do include specific airports, exchange points, and times because vagueness invites enforcement problems
- Do notarize signatures in front of a Florida notary or an out-of-state notary whose acknowledgement complies with § 117.05
- Do keep certified copies of the signed plan because schools, doctors, and airlines may demand proof
- Don’t file without checking the case number on the Florida Courts e-filing portal because a typo routes the form to the wrong judge
- Don’t include child support amounts inside the parenting plan because support belongs in a separate worksheet under § 61.30
- Don’t mix Form 12.995(b) clauses with Form 12.995(a) clauses because contradictory terms invite judge revisions
- Don’t leave Section XII blank because it is the only section that captures custom terms
- Don’t sign the plan before reading it line by line because every blank space binds you once the judge signs
Pros and Cons of Filing Pro Se
Self-represented parents save money but assume real risk.
- Pro: You save the $300-$500 per hour fee a Florida family lawyer typically charges
- Pro: You control every word of the plan and avoid generic boilerplate
- Pro: You learn the statute, which helps you self-enforce later
- Pro: You can use the Florida Courts Self-Help Centers free of charge
- Pro: You file at your own pace without coordinating with a lawyer’s calendar
- Con: You may miss the 60-day notice requirement and face contempt
- Con: You cannot ask the clerk for legal advice because clerks are barred from giving it
- Con: You bear the risk of judge rejection and the delay it causes
- Con: You may write unenforceable clauses that confuse future judges
- Con: You lose strategic leverage against an opposing lawyer in negotiation
Forms, Filings, and Filing Fees You Should Know
The parenting plan rarely files alone. Most cases include a Notice of Intent to Relocate, a Petition to Relocate, and a Family Law Financial Affidavit when child support is at issue. Filing fees in 2026 run roughly $409 for an initial dissolution and $50 to $100 for a supplemental petition, although fee waivers under § 57.082 are available for indigent filers.
The consequence of filing the plan without the supporting documents is that the judge may continue the hearing and order you to refile. For example, Kevin filed Form 12.995(b) without a financial affidavit, and the judge reset the hearing 45 days out, costing him a summer with his child.
A common misconception is that an agreed plan needs no judge involvement. Every parenting plan, agreed or contested, must be approved and signed by a Florida circuit judge under § 61.13(2)(b)1.
Key People, Places, and Entities Involved
A long-distance parenting plan touches several institutions. The Florida circuit court family division is the primary forum, and the Office of the State Courts Administrator maintains the official forms. The Florida Bar Family Law Section drafts proposed rule changes, and the Florida Department of Revenue Child Support Program enforces support orders that flow from the plan. The General Magistrate often hears uncontested plans before the judge signs.
The consequence of misunderstanding who decides what is wasted filings. For example, Linda served a parenting plan on the Department of Revenue thinking it would trigger a support adjustment, but support modification requires a separate § 61.30 motion.
A common misconception is that the clerk reviews the plan for legal sufficiency. The clerk only checks intake formalities, while the judge or magistrate reviews substance.
FAQs
Do I need a lawyer to file Florida Form 12.995(b)?
No. Florida lets parents self-represent in family court, but a lawyer reduces rejection risk and helps you draft enforceable clauses tailored to your circuit’s local practice and judge.
Can I use Form 12.995(b) if I live within Florida?
Yes. The form applies to any case where parents live more than 50 miles apart, even within Florida, because the trigger is distance, not state lines, under § 61.13001(1)(e).
Does the child have to consent to the parenting plan?
No. Florida law lets the judge consider a child’s preference, but the child does not sign or veto the plan, and the parents and judge control the final terms.
Will the court automatically grant a relocation if I attach Form 12.995(b)?
No. The court applies the eleven relocation factors in § 61.13001(7) and the best-interest factors in § 61.13(3), and the relocating parent must prove the move benefits the child.
Can both parents sign the plan and skip the hearing?
Yes. An agreed parenting plan can be entered without an evidentiary hearing if both parents and any non-parent with time-sharing rights sign it before a notary and submit it for the judge’s signature.
Do I have to file a separate relocation petition with the plan?
Yes. A long-distance plan does not replace the relocation petition or written consent required by § 61.13001, and skipping the petition can void the move.
Can I modify Form 12.995(b) later?
Yes. Either parent may file a supplemental petition to modify by showing a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances under § 61.13(3).
Will Florida enforce my long-distance plan in another state?
Yes. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act requires other states to enforce a Florida parenting plan as long as Florida had jurisdiction when the plan was entered.
Can I include a right of first refusal clause?
Yes. Florida courts approve right-of-first-refusal clauses when the time threshold is reasonable, such as 12 or 24 hours, and when the clause includes a clear notification method.
Does the long-distance plan affect child support?
Yes. The number of overnights in the time-sharing schedule feeds the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, so the plan indirectly drives the support amount under § 61.30.
Can grandparents be included in the plan?
No. Florida grandparent visitation rights are extremely limited under § 752.011, and the parenting plan typically binds only the parents and the child.
Is virtual visitation enforceable?
Yes. Florida recognizes electronic communication as part of time-sharing under § 61.13(2)(b)2, and judges enforce specific virtual visitation schedules just like in-person time.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out Florida Form 12.901(b)(1) (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Florida Form 12.903(c)(1) (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Florida Form 12.903(c)(3) (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Florida Form 12.947(a) (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Florida Form 12.995(a) (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Florida Form P-5.0271 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Florida Form 12.930(d) (w/Examples) + FAQs