Background
On March 12, 2025, the trial court granted an emergency motion suspending all timesharing between David Jimenez and his children until further order.
In April 2026, Jimenez moved to reinstate timesharing and requested an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the motion, and the record did not indicate that Jimenez had ever received an evidentiary hearing concerning the suspension.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District held that although a trial court may temporarily suspend timesharing without first conducting an evidentiary hearing when an emergency requires the immediate protection of a child, the affected parent must receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard as soon afterward as possible.
Because Jimenez had not received an evidentiary hearing on the suspension, the court reversed the order denying his April 2026 motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that motion.
Key Takeaways
- An emergency may justify temporarily suspending timesharing before an evidentiary hearing.
- The affected parent must receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard as soon as possible after the emergency suspension.
- The Fourth District reversed and required an evidentiary hearing on the father’s motion to reinstate timesharing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that an emergency timesharing suspension cannot remain in place without promptly giving the affected parent a meaningful opportunity to contest it. Trial courts must follow emergency protective action with a timely evidentiary hearing.