Florida SB 1128 Time-Sharing Hearing Bill Died (2026)

Did Florida SB 1128 fast-track time-sharing hearings starting July 1, 2026?

No. Despite its July 1, 2026 proposed effective date, SB 1128 never became law. The bill, which would have amended F.S. 61.13 to prioritize time-sharing hearings and require courts to hear temporary parenting motions within 30 days, died in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice on March 13, 2026, over cost concerns. Its companion, HB 971, died the same day.

The News Hook

If you have seen headlines claiming Florida is fast-tracking parenting plan and time-sharing hearings as of July 1, 2026, here is the accurate version: it did not happen. SB 1128, filed by Senator Erin Grall (a Vero Beach attorney) on January 5, 2026, set out to attack one of the most painful problems in Florida family law: parents waiting many months, sometimes 18 months to two years, for a court to resolve a time-sharing dispute while one parent is locked out of a child's life in the meantime.

The bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-0 vote in February 2026 after a significant amendment. But it then stalled in the Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice, where its likely-significant cost to the court system proved fatal. The bill, and its identical House companion HB 971, both died on March 13, 2026. The 2026 legislative session ended without either becoming law.

We are covering a bill that failed because Florida residents searching for "SB 1128" deserve to know it is not in effect. Acting as though a dead bill is law could lead someone to walk into court expecting a five-day hearing that the statute does not require.

What SB 1128 Actually Proposed

SB 1128 went through two meaningfully different versions, and the distinction matters.

The original "duty judge" version

The bill as filed contained an aggressive enforcement scheme. It would have required any motion to enforce a time-sharing order to be heard by the assigned judge within five business days. If that judge was unavailable, a 24/7 "duty judge" would have had to conduct the hearing, including on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or after hours.

The strike-all amendment

Senator Grall offered a strike-all amendment that removed the 24/7 duty judge requirement, framing it as the start of a "conversation" rather than a final fix. The revised bill instead:

• Added a new subsection (10) to F.S. 61.13 providing that certain time-sharing matters must be given priority on the court's calendar.
• Would have required a hearing on temporary parenting arrangements within 30 days of a motion being filed, with an order to follow within 30 days after that hearing.
• Directed the Office of the State Courts Administrator to publish annual reports on evidentiary hearings held across the judicial circuits, creating accountability data.

The softened version is what passed Judiciary 10-0. It is also the version that died over money.

Legal Implications for Florida Divorce Cases

Because SB 1128 failed, nothing about how Florida courts schedule time-sharing hearings changed on July 1, 2026. The existing framework governs:

• F.S. 61.13 still controls parenting plans, parental responsibility, and time-sharing, with the court's calendar managed under existing rules and local administrative orders rather than a statutory 30-day deadline.
• The 2023 reforms under SB 1416, which created a rebuttable presumption that equal (50/50) time-sharing is in the best interest of the child, remain the substantive backdrop. SB 1128 was a procedural speed bill layered on top of those 2023 changes, not a replacement for them.
• Enforcement of an existing time-sharing order still proceeds through a motion for civil contempt or enforcement under F.S. 61.13, scheduled on the ordinary docket. There is no statutory five-business-day or five-day enforcement hearing.

The practical reality the bill was trying to solve is still here. A parent whose ex-spouse withholds the child has the same remedies they had in 2025: file a motion to enforce or for contempt, request expedited or emergency relief where genuine emergencies exist, and wait for the court's calendar. The speed of relief continues to depend heavily on the circuit and the judge.

Florida-Specific Analysis

Florida's family courts already carry heavy caseloads, and the fiscal analysis behind SB 1128 was blunt: forcing 30-day hearing windows and statewide reporting would likely require additional judges and staff at significant cost. That tension between speed and resources is exactly why the bill died, and it tells you something about where the bigger risk lies for parents.

The parents most exposed to court delay are those in genuinely contested cases. When parents fight over the parenting plan, the schedule, or relocation, they enter the docket that SB 1128 was meant to accelerate, and that docket is still slow.

The parents least exposed are those who resolve time-sharing by agreement. In an uncontested divorce, both spouses sign a parenting plan and marital settlement agreement before they ever ask a judge to do anything. There is no contested motion to schedule, no temporary hearing to wait 30 days for, and no enforcement fight, because the parties built the plan together. A bill designed to speed up contested hearings has almost no bearing on a case that never becomes a hearing.

That is the quiet lesson in SB 1128's failure: the legislature could not afford to make the contested path fast, which makes the agreement path more valuable, not less.

Practical Takeaways for Florida Residents

• Do not rely on SB 1128. It is not law. If a website or form tells you Florida guarantees a time-sharing hearing within five days or thirty days, that is inaccurate as of the 2026 session.
• Existing remedies still apply. To enforce a time-sharing order, you file a motion to enforce or for contempt under F.S. 61.13. Emergency relief exists for true emergencies, but routine disputes go on the regular docket.
• The 2023 50/50 presumption is the live law. Under SB 1416, Florida presumes equal time-sharing is in the child's best interest unless rebutted. That is the rule a court applies, not anything from SB 1128.
• If you and your spouse agree, avoid the docket entirely. A signed parenting plan and marital settlement agreement keep you out of the contested-hearing backlog the bill could not fix. Learn more in our guide to the parenting plan in a Florida divorce and the marital settlement agreement.
• Know when you actually need a lawyer. Agreed cases are far simpler than contested ones. See do you need a lawyer for an uncontested divorce in Florida and our overview of uncontested vs. contested divorce in Florida.

For families with minor children who agree on the major terms, our firm handles uncontested divorce for a $750 flat attorney fee (court filing fees are separate), including the parenting plan, child support guidelines worksheet, and UCCJEA affidavit. See uncontested divorce with children in Florida or ask our AI assistant at /ask-victoria.

Watch This Issue

Senator Grall framed SB 1128 as the opening of a conversation, which usually signals a refiled bill in a future session. A 2027 version could return in a leaner form, perhaps the priority-scheduling language without the costly statewide reporting and rigid deadlines. For now, though, Florida law on time-sharing hearings is unchanged.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided by Antonio G. Jimenez, Esq. (Florida Bar No. 21022) for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Legislation changes and bill statuses can shift between sessions; verify the current status of any bill at flsenate.gov before relying on it. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed Florida attorney.