Greyson’s Law in Brevard County: When Threats Against a Parent Become Evidence About the Child
Before July 2023, a Florida judge weighing a custody dispute often couldn’t act on a parent’s threats unless those threats had produced a criminal conviction — and unless they were aimed squarely at the child. A parent could terrorize the other parent for weeks, and if none of it was technically directed at the child and none of it had been prosecuted, the court frequently had no statutory hook to treat that conduct as a danger to the child.
Greyson’s Law closed that gap. If your case involves a co-parent whose behavior frightens you, or if you’ve been accused of such behavior, the change matters, and understanding it accurately matters more, because a lot of what’s written about this law online is wrong.
What the law actually is (and what most summaries get wrong)
The reform was enacted as Chapter 2023-112, Laws of Florida, the enrolled bill was CS/CS/SB 130 (2023) , and it took effect July 1, 2023. You’ll see firm websites call it “House Bill 97” and say it “passed in May 2023.” HB 97 was an earlier House version (first filed in 2021); but it was the Senate measure that became law. The distinction isn’t pedantry, if an article or summary gets the citation wrong, treat its description of the substance with caution too.
The most common error in information online is the claim that Greyson’s Law replaced the old conviction-based standard. It didn’t. The 2023 amendment to § 61.13(2)(c) did two things at once:
It added a new list of factors a court must weigh in deciding whether shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to a child — including domestic violence regardless of any conviction, and whether either parent has had reasonable cause to believe the parent or child faced imminent danger of domestic violence, sexual violence, abuse, abandonment, or neglect, whether or not any case was ever filed.
And it kept the older conviction-based triggers (a domestic-violence conviction, the § 39.806(1)(d) criteria, certain sex offenses against a minor) as a rebuttable presumption of detriment, simply renumbered into the next subparagraph.
Two more pieces tend to get left out entirely. The law also amended the best-interest factor at § 61.13(3)(m), which means this reasoning reaches time-sharing, not just decision-making authority. And it amended the injunction statute, § 741.30, to let a court weigh a pattern of abusive, threatening, intimidating, or controlling behavior when deciding whether a petitioner faces imminent danger.
At a glance — how § 61.13(2)(c) changed:
| Before — § 61.13(2)(c)2. (2022) | After — § 61.13(2)(c) (2023) |
| Shared parental responsibility is ordered unless detrimental to the child. A rebuttable presumption of detriment arises only from: (a) a first-degree-misdemeanor-or-higher domestic-violence conviction; (b) meeting the § 39.806(1)(d) criteria; or (c) a conviction or withhold for an enumerated sex offense committed as an adult against a minor. | Shared parental responsibility is still ordered unless detrimental, but in determining detriment the court shall consider: (a) evidence of domestic violence; (b) whether either parent had reasonable cause to believe the parent or child faced imminent danger of domestic or sexual violence; (c) the same as to abuse, abandonment, or neglect — regardless of any pending case; and (d) any other relevant factors. The conviction-based presumption is retained at subparagraph 3. |
Why proving a non-conviction case is a different kind of problem
Here’s the part that rarely makes it into a general overview: Adding “evidence of domestic violence regardless of conviction” to the statute is the easy part. Marshaling that evidence in a way a court can act on is the hard part and it’s where a case is won or lost.
A conviction is a tidy fact. A pattern of coercive control is not. It lives in text-message threads, location-tracking, escalating contact around exchanges, monitoring, financial control, and threats calibrated to stay just short of anything chargeable. Courts now have to evaluate exactly the kind of conduct that destroyed the Kessler family, threats aimed at a parent, never prosecuted, and decide what it means for a child’s safety.
As a Guardian ad Litem with a background in psychology and forensic risk assessment, this is the work I (Bonnie Rhoden) do: not to repeat allegations, but to investigate them and give the court a grounded picture. That means looking at what structured risk assessment actually weighs, a documented history of threats, escalation over time, the period around separation (a well-recognized high-risk window for intimate-partner violence), access to means, and whether a pattern shows the continuity of purpose that § 741.30 now expressly contemplates. The statute opened the door; the evidence and its interpretation are what walk a judge through it.
The edge most sources won’t acknowledge: it cuts both ways
Because the new standard no longer requires a conviction, it can be invoked sincerely by a frightened parent, and it can be invoked tactically by one who isn’t. A broadened standard is a tool for protecting children and a tool that can be misused in a contentious case. Florida courts and the Guardians ad Litem who advise them know this, which is why the analysis turns on corroboration, consistency, and pattern rather than on the allegation alone. If you are the parent being accused, the response is not panic; it’s evidence and a clear-eyed account that holds up to scrutiny. And another reminder to document, document, document!
How this looks in a Brevard County case
Family matters here are heard in the 18th Judicial Circuit. In practice, a parent who has genuine safety concerns and wants them reflected in the parenting plan should expect the court to look for specifics, documented incidents, dates, communications, rather than general characterizations, and in contested matters to rely on a Guardian ad Litem to investigate and recommend. The earlier and more carefully that record is built, the more useful it is to the court, and the more likely your Attorney or GAL can use it to help you achieve your goal.
Our practice is built around getting these issues resolved thoughtfully and, wherever the facts allow, without dragging a family through unnecessary litigation. But where a child’s safety is genuinely at stake, Greyson’s Law gives the court real authority to act, and using it well takes preparation.
Frequently asked questions
Can a parent lose custody under Greyson’s Law without a criminal conviction?
Yes. That’s the central change. A court may now treat domestic violence as evidence of detriment to a child regardless of whether it resulted in a conviction, and must consider whether a parent reasonably believed the parent or child was in imminent danger.
Does Greyson’s Law apply to time-sharing or only to decision-making?
Both. The reform reached the parental-responsibility analysis in § 61.13(2)(c) and the best-interest factors in § 61.13(3)(m) that govern time-sharing, so the same evidence can bear on the schedule itself.
What if my co-parent makes false allegations to gain an advantage?
The standard rewards corroboration and pattern, not bare accusations. Courts and Guardians ad Litem are alert to allegations raised tactically in a custody fight, which is why a careful factual record matters as much for the accused parent as for the accusing one.
What does a Guardian ad Litem do in a case like this?
A Guardian ad Litem is appointed to investigate and represent the child’s best interests, then report and recommend to the court. In a safety case, that includes evaluating the credibility and pattern of the conduct alleged — work that benefits from both legal and behavioral-science training.
My situation involves threats, but nothing has been filed in court. Does that matter?
Under the current statute, no pending or prior action is required for the court to consider the conduct. The absence of a filed case does not put the issue off-limits.
Consultations are as easy as calling, texting, or emailing the office. Bonnie is typically available same day and is known to return calls after hours and on weekends. Office 321-549-3162 (text or call) or email using the contact form here on the website.