JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

David JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. Erica Joy JIMENEZ, Appellee.

No. 4D2026-1088

Decided: September 30, 2026

David Jimenez, Fort Lauderdale, pro se. No appearance for appellee.

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.

Per Curiam.

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Shaw, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network