DAVID JIMENEZ
v.
ERICA JOY JIMENEZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court may temporarily suspend timesharing without an evidentiary hearing in an emergency, but must provide the affected parent a meaningful opportunity to be heard as soon thereafter as possible.
[1] A parent whose timesharing has been suspended in an emergency without a hearing is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard as soon thereafter as possible, and a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial court may temporarily suspend timesharing without first conducting an evidentiary hearing when an emergency requires immediate protection of a child. That authority, however, is accompanied by a requirement that the affected parent receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard "as soon thereafter as possible."”
The court explaining the legal standard for emergency suspension of timesharing and the accompanying procedural requirement.
The trial court suspended all timesharing between the father and his children on March 12, 2025, based on an emergency motion. In April 2026, the fath…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Meaningful Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DAVID JIMΕΝΕΖ, Appellant, V.
ERICA JOY JIMENEZ, Appellee.
No. 4D2026-1088 [September 30, 2026] Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Kristin R. Kanner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062018DR005070AXXXCE.
David Jimenez, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
On March 12, 2025, the trial court granted an emergency motion suspending all timesharing between appellant (the “father”) and his children until further order. In April 2026, the father moved to reinstate timesharing and requested an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the motion.
Nothing in the record indicates that the father has ever had an evidentiary hearing on the suspension of his timesharing. A trial court may temporarily suspend timesharing without first conducting an evidentiary hearing when an emergency requires immediate protection of a child. That authority, however, is accompanied by a requirement that the affected parent receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard “as soon thereafter as possible.” Smith v. Crider, 932 So. 2d 393, 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In Ramirez v. Marzano, 384 So. 3d 273, 278–79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), we held that a four-month delay before an evidentiary hearing was not sufficiently prompt.
We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on appellant's April 2026 motion to reinstate timesharing.
Reversed and remanded.
GERBER, C.J., GROSS and SHAW, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing. 2