Background
Brandon Jaquan Rollins filed a petition to determine paternity and establish shared parental responsibility, timesharing, and child support. The child lived full-time with Dejah Tamir Johnson in Texas, and Rollins had never had an overnight visit. Johnson counterpetitioned for relocation, parental responsibility, long-distance timesharing, and related relief.
Forty days before the scheduled final hearing, Johnson sought a continuance because her counsel had preplanned travel, court-ordered mediation had not occurred, and the allotted hour was insufficient. The magistrate could not hear the motion earlier and scheduled it for the same time as the final hearing. When Johnson and her counsel attempted to appear remotely, the magistrate declined to permit it, denied the continuance, and immediately conducted the hearing without them.
Rollins was the only witness. Although he initially requested equal timesharing and said he did not want to take the child from Johnson, he later agreed to take the child “100 percent” after the magistrate discussed the impracticability of equal timesharing across state lines. The circuit court ratified the magistrate’s recommendation that Rollins receive 289 overnights annually, that Johnson exercise all timesharing in Florida, and that the child return to Florida.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District held that the combined circumstances surrounding the continuance motion created manifest injustice and amounted to an abuse of discretion. Johnson filed the motion well before trial for valid, non-dilatory reasons, immediately sought a hearing, and had no meaningful opportunity to obtain a ruling early enough to prepare for trial if the motion were denied. Proceeding immediately in her absence prevented her from testifying, presenting evidence, cross-examining Rollins, or addressing the statutory best-interest factors. The record also did not show that a brief continuance would have prejudiced Rollins.
The court separately held that the timesharing award exceeded the relief fairly presented in Rollins’s pleadings and was not tried by consent because Johnson was absent. Rollins had requested equal timesharing, not the substantial majority of overnights or a restriction requiring Johnson to exercise timesharing only in Florida.
The award also lacked competent, substantial evidence. The record contained no testimony on many statutory factors, and Rollins lacked a bed for the child, was uncertain about the child’s grade and prospective school, had fluctuating work hours, and did not know whether his employer would accommodate school pickups. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on every issue raised in the petition and counterpetition.
Key Takeaways
- A court may abuse its discretion when it postpones consideration of a timely continuance motion until the moment trial begins, leaving the movant no practical opportunity to prepare after denial.
- A timesharing judgment cannot grant relief outside the pleadings when the affected parent lacked notice and the issue was not tried by consent.
- Parenting arrangements must rest on competent, substantial evidence addressing the child’s best interests, even when only one parent participates in the hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that docket-management discretion has limits when its exercise deprives a parent of a meaningful opportunity to participate in proceedings that substantially change a child’s residence and timesharing arrangement.
Judge Lott concurred in the result but disagreed with part of the majority’s reasoning. He viewed the continuance error as docket mismanagement rather than an improper denial on the merits and argued that existing precedent wrongly treats an unrequested timesharing schedule as a due-process violation. He nevertheless agreed that reversal was required because Johnson lacked a fair opportunity to participate and the ordered schedule was unsupported by competent, substantial evidence.