In Vaelizadeh v. Hossaini the 4th DCA tackled the issue of an untimely objection to relocation. The trial court found that the Father’s objection to the proposed relocation was untimely and thus entered a final judgment allowing the relocation, but the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for five reasons:
- The father had filed a petition to domesticate and modify a foreign order to seek residential custody before the mother filed her relocation petition. That petition was still pending when the court entered the final judgment allowing relocation.
- Although the father missed the twenty-day deadline for filing an objection to the relocation petition, he filed a motion challenging to the petition eight days after that deadline, and just three days after the mother’s request for an order granting relocation. Good cause not to grant the relocation was stated in the motion.
- The father’s untimely response to the relocation petition was not due to the father’s willful inaction, but due to his attorney’s unavailability while tending to an ill family member.
- Final Judgments based upon defaults which do not consider the child’s best interests are disfavored.
- The relocation judgment is inconsistent with the court’s oral ruling and written order from earlier that day stating that the father could set a “best interests” evidentiary hearing.