Florida Court Clarifies The Emergency Suspension Of Timesharing

In the case of Mishkin v. Mishkin, the Third District Court of Appeal addressed the authority of trial courts to temporarily suspend timesharing (visitation and parenting time) under emergency circumstances. In this case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s non-final order. This reaffirmed Florida jurisprudence permitting emergency modification of parenting plans when child safety or exigent conditions demand it.

Background of the case 

In this case, the parties were subject to a parenting plan and a timesharing order. After allegations surfaced raising urgent concerns, the trial court entered an order temporarily suspending timesharing in favor of the custodial parent as a protective measure. The father appealed the non-final order that challenged whether the trial court had the authority and whether it abused its discretion.

On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reviewed whether the trial court’s decision was within its discretion and whether a “true emergency” actually existed. The appeals court, in this case, affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Legal standard for the emergency suspension of timesharing 

The Mishkin decision relies heavily on prior Florida decisions that recognize a trial court’s discretion to suspend timesharing in an emergency. Key precedents to this case include:

• Perez v. Dwyer – The Third DCA decision that trial court orders suspending timesharing are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

• Gielchinsky v. Gielchinsky – The Fourth DCA acknowledged that courts can suspend visitation temporarily when there is a “true emergency”.

• Saenz v. Sanchez – This case recognized that emergency modifications are proper in circumstances such as child endangerment, the threat of harm, or imminent removal from the court’s jurisdiction.

Mishkin thus confirms that courts are not powerless in the face of urgent threats. Courts can intervene quickly to protect children. However, such intervention must be proportional and temporary, pending full hearings.

Key information from the case 

• Affirmation of emergency suspension – The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when suspending timesharing, given that the record supported the existence of exigent circumstances justifying intervention.

• Non-final orders are appealable – Mishkin demonstrates that suspending timesharing could be subject to appellate review. This reinforces that such orders carry serious rights implications that must be justified.

• Procedural limits and protections – While emergency relief is permitted, courts need to be cautious. These orders must be temporary, based on credible evidence, and allow for speedy subsequent hearings or reconsideration.

Talk to an Orlando, FL, Family Law Attorney Today 

Greater Orlando Family Law represents the interests of Orlando residents during their divorce. Call our Orlando family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your case right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2025/3d24-1516.html