Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
Emergency suspension of a parent’s time-sharing in a Florida child custody case is a drastic measure which must follow certain procedural safeguards. This was an issue in the case Capps v. Capps, 4D2025-3371 (Fla. 4th DCA December 17, 2025).
In this contentious divorce case, allegations of sexual abuse of the parties’ children were made by the wife against the husband more than once. In addition, the wife alleged the husband was drugging the children, and she initiated physician exams of the children, along with reports to the Department of Children and Families. The wife requested suspension of the husband’s time-sharing. The husband countered with his own motion to suspend the wife’s time-sharing, alleging the wife was fabricating these claims and subjecting the children to trauma through repeated exams and DCF involvement. The trial court eventually suspended the wife’s time-sharing and ordered that she have only supervised timesharing. She appealed.
The appellate court noted “Wife argues her due process rights were violated when the trial court suspended her timesharing without sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard. After a careful review of the parties’ appellate appendices, we disagree with Wife’s arguments. The heart of the matter is the propriety of the trial court’s order modifying a prior temporary order regarding parental responsibility and timesharing on an emergency basis without a full evidentiary hearing. We reject Wife’s argument that due process was violated because Wife had inadequate notice.”
The court concluded “In the instant case, our review of the appendices confirms the trial court had valid ‘grave concerns’ that the children were being exposed to substantial emotional abuse or trauma by Wife. For that reason, the trial court entered the emergency protection order under review. The trial court recognized it must afford Wife a full evidentiary hearing to allow both sides to present evidence and argument as to the need for the order to remain in effect. We reject Wife’s argument that the November 5 order was entered solely on the statements of Husband’s counsel at the status conference with no sworn proof to support the allegations. Husband’s October 20 emergency motion was sworn to by Husband and the motion had attached documents which were authenticated by Husband’s statements in the motion. We also note that at the October 21 hearing, the GAL, under oath, reported the children were being tested for drugs and investigated by DCF and the DPD for sexual abuse. While Husband’s counsel’s representation of events after October 20 were very concerning to the trial court at the November 4 status conference, we are satisfied that Husband’s sworn October 20 emergency motion and the GAL’s sworn October 21 testimony were sufficient to justify the emergency order suspending Wife’s timesharing.”
Nothing in this article is legal advice. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney for legal advice about your case.