Greyson's Law

Greyson’s Law: A Legacy of Justice and Protection

Greyson’s Law is named in honor of Greyson Kessler, a young boy whose tragic death highlighted a critical gap in family law and led to a significant change in how the legal system approaches child custody, timesharing, and the safety of children in high-conflict situations. Greyson’s story is one of loss, love, and the relentless pursuit of justice, and it has forever altered the landscape of family law to ensure that no child must live in fear due to threats of violence in their home.

The Tragic Story of Greyson Kessler

In 2018, Greyson Kessler was tragically murdered by his father, who had been involved in a custody battle with Greyson’s mother, Ali Kessler. Ali had repeatedly expressed concern for her son’s safety, citing threats of violence made by the father against her. Despite this, the court did not consider these threats as a sufficient basis to grant Ali an injunction to protect her son and herself. The law did not allow for these threats to be weighed seriously in custody and timesharing decisions.

Greyson’s death sparked a movement within the family law community, urging lawmakers, advocates, and the public to reconsider how courts handle threats of violence in custody cases. The tragedy underscored the need for a law that would allow judges to take immediate action in the face of threats, even before violence could occur, to prevent further harm to vulnerable children.

How Greyson's Law Came to Be

In the wake of Greyson’s death, Greyson’s Law was championed by his mother, Ali Kessler, and other family law reform advocates. It was designed to address the glaring gaps in how courts handled cases where one parent posed a threat of violence to the other or to the child. Prior to the law’s enactment, judges often could not intervene until violence occurred or a substantial risk was proven, leaving children and parents in precarious situations.

Greyson’s Law allows family court judges to consider threats of violence as a significant factor when determining custody and timesharing arrangements. It also grants judges the authority to pause or temporarily suspend timesharing if there is credible evidence that one parent poses a risk to the child’s safety, based on threats or past violent behavior.

The law was passed after a widespread advocacy campaign, including public outcry, grassroots efforts, and the tireless work of families and organizations dedicated to protecting children from harm in family courts.

Key Provisions of Greyson’s Law

How does Greyson's Law work?

Requires judges to consider domestic violence, sexual violence, neglect, abuse, or abandonment when determining custody and time-sharing 

Allows judges to consider threats of domestic violence or sexual assault made against the child or the other parent 

Expands the laws surrounding domestic violence injunctions 

Requires protective injunctions to be served within 24 hours of being filed 

By making it clear that threats of violence must be taken seriously, Greyson’s Law has brought greater awareness to the dangers that children face in high-conflict custody cases and has led to more protective, child-centered decisions. This law is a testament to the importance of ensuring that family court decisions prioritize the well-being of children and provide legal recourse for parents who may be in danger.

Continuing Greyson’s Legacy

While Greyson’s Law has made significant strides in improving family court procedures, the fight for justice and safety continues. Ali Kessler and other advocates are working tirelessly to raise awareness about the importance of child safety in family courts and to advocate for further legal reforms to protect vulnerable children.

The tragic loss of Greyson Kessler serves as a stark reminder of the need for vigilance, compassion, and immediate action when it comes to protecting children from violence and harm. Greyson’s Law is a victory, but it is also a call to action for all of us to continue fighting for a legal system that truly protects children and holds parents accountable for their actions.

Florida Timesharing Law Before Greyson’s Law

Before Greyson’s Law, Florida’s timesharing laws generally granted both parents equal time with a child after divorce or separation. A parent’s timesharing rights could only be limited if they were convicted of a serious offense, such as domestic violence, or were a registered sex offender.

The court had discretion to limit timesharing if it was deemed harmful to the child, but this was not mandatory, and evidence of domestic violence against a parent was not always considered. If there was evidence of domestic violence against the child, timesharing could be restricted, but abuse against the other parent was not automatically a factor in custody decisions.

In Kessler’s case, she couldn’t have her ex-partner arrested for domestic violence due to Florida’s narrow definition of the offense, making it difficult to prove her case in court.

FLORIDA STATUTES AND GREYSON’S LAW

On July 1, 2023, the Florida legislature revised Florida Statute 61.13 to include the provisions

related to domestic abuse, otherwise known as Greyson’s Law. Florida Statute 61.13 (2) (c) (2) now reads in pertinent part:

The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents

unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. In

determining detriment to the child, the court shall consider:

a. Evidence of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28;

b. Whether either parent has or has had reasonable cause to believe that he or she or his or her

minor child or children are or have been in imminent danger of becoming victims of an act of

domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or sexual violence as defined in s. 784.046(1)(c) by the

other parent against the parent or against the child or children whom the parents share in common

regardless of whether a cause of action has been brought or is currently pending in the court;

c. Whether either parent has or has had reasonable cause to believe that his or her minor child or

children are or have been in imminent danger of becoming victims of an act of abuse,

abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01, by the other parent against the

child or children whom the parents share in common regardless of whether a cause of action has

been brought or is currently pending in the court; and

d. Any other relevant factors.

When applying Greyson’s Law s. 61.13 (2) (c) (2), the language of Florida Statute 741.28 must

be tracked to define evidence of domestic violence: Domestic Violence is defined in s.741.28 as

follows:

(2) “Domestic violence” means any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery,

sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or

any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by

another family or household member.

Likewise, when applying Greyson’s Law s. 61.13 (2) (c) (2), the language of Florida Statute

39.01 must be tracked to define evidence of neglect: Neglect is defined is defined in s.39.01 as

follows (in pertinent part):

(2) “Abuse” means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual

abuse, injury, or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child’s physical, mental, or emotional

health to be significantly impaired…Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions.

(53) “Neglect” occurs when a child is deprived of, or is allowed to be deprived of, necessary

food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment or a child is permitted to live in an environment when

such deprivation or environment causes the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be

significantly impaired or to be in danger of being significantly impaired.

APPLICATION OF GREYSON’S LAW TO JUSTIFY AN INJUNCTION

AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH MINOR CHILDREN: Here, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abuse, both physical and emotional, threats,

intimidation, neglect, and reckless behavior, placing the minor children

and the Petitioner in imminent danger of harm. His verbal threats to kill the Petitioner in the

presence of the children, physical and emotional aggression, and coercive control are clear

indicators of domestic violence as defined in Florida Statute 741.28. 

Given these facts, there is reason to believe that the minor children have been, and continue to be,

in imminent danger of becoming victims of domestic violence, abuse, and neglect by the

Respondent. This matter is not to be taken lightly, and the relief sought herein is justified to prevent

irreparable harm or tragedy.