This is Scott’s reasoning:

Current law directs a judge to consider the needs and interests of the children first when determining a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule,’' Scott’s veto letter says, according to NSF. "This bill has the potential to upend that policy in favor of putting the wants of a parent before the child’s best interest by creating a premise of equal time-sharing. Our judges must consider each family’s unique situation and abilities and put the best interests of the child above all else.

That was the part he vetoed. Considering best for child above all should come first. If that’s the mother gets full custody then that happens. If it’s the father, then that should happen. “Split it down the middle” doesn’t do this in every case. Heck, it usually doesn’t do it in most cases unless the parents remain in the same school district.

If both parents are capable, having both parents there is very important, but forcing a child to split times between schools? That’s not good for the child.

Again, I don’t live In Florida so I can’t speak to that bill and the history specifically, but I do know a ton of people who grew up in a divorced home, or are trying to raise their kids alone (both male and female single parents) . a “just give them 50 from the start" wouldn’t benefit a single one of them.