Florida SB 1128: Faster Time-Sharing Hearings (2026)

Florida Senate Bill 1128 (2026) proposed to prioritize time-sharing matters on court calendars and to require, rather than merely authorize, judges to establish a parenting plan in certain proceedings. It amended F.S. §26.20, §61.13, and §742.031. The bill died in committee on March 13, 2026, so it is not law.

News Hook: What SB 1128 Tried to Do

Filed by Senator Erin Grall and routed through the Judiciary Committee, Senate Bill 1128 took aim at one of the most frustrating realities in Florida family law: how long parents wait for a hearing on time-sharing. The bill, in its committee substitute form (CS/SB 1128), would have done four main things.

First, it would have prioritized certain time-sharing matters on court calendars, pushing them ahead in the queue. Second, it set procedural requirements for evidentiary hearings on motions to establish temporary parental responsibility and time-sharing. Third, it created procedures for hearings on motions to enforce existing time-sharing orders. Fourth, it directed the Office of the State Courts Administrator to publish annual reports on evidentiary hearings broken out by judicial circuit.

The headline change was a single, powerful word swap. The bill would have changed the court's authority from "may" to "shall" when it comes to making a determination on an appropriate parenting plan in certain proceedings. In legislative drafting, that one substitution converts a discretionary power into a mandatory duty.

To amend the procedural machinery, the bill reached into three statutes:

• F.S. §26.20, which addresses the availability of a judge for hearings
• F.S. §61.13, the core statute on support of children, parental responsibility, and time-sharing
• F.S. §742.031, which governs hearings and court orders for support and attorney fees in paternity matters

Proposed effective date: July 1, 2026.

The important update for Florida parents reading this: SB 1128 died in the Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice on March 13, 2026. It did not pass and is not current law. Florida's existing time-sharing framework under Chapter 61 remains in effect.

Legal Implications: Why a "May" to "Shall" Change Matters

Even though SB 1128 did not become law, the policy problem it targeted is real, and understanding the proposal helps Florida parents see how the system works today.

Under current law, a Florida court approves or establishes a parenting plan in every case involving minor children. F.S. §61.13(2)(b) requires a parenting plan in any action where time-sharing is at issue. The friction the bill addressed was not whether a plan gets entered, but how quickly a contested temporary time-sharing dispute reaches an evidentiary hearing, and how consistently judges treat motions to enforce existing orders.

When a statute says a court "may" act, an appellate court will generally defer to the trial judge's discretion. When a statute says a court "shall" act, the duty becomes reviewable as a matter of law, and a parent denied that action has a stronger basis to seek relief. SB 1128's proposed shift would have narrowed judicial discretion in favor of a guaranteed determination, which supporters argued would reduce indefinite delays for the parent waiting on a temporary arrangement.

The calendar-prioritization piece spoke to a structural backlog. Family courts juggle dependency, domestic violence injunctions, dissolution, and paternity dockets. A statute directing judges to elevate time-sharing matters would have competed for the same limited judicial time the bill also tried to study through annual OSCA reporting.

Florida-Specific Analysis: How This Fits the Post-2023 Landscape

SB 1128 should be read against Florida's recent family-law reform wave. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 1416, which overhauled alimony by ending permanent alimony and restructuring durational support under F.S. §61.08. That same session, the Legislature also adopted a rebuttable presumption that equal, 50/50 time-sharing is in the best interest of the child, codified in F.S. §61.13(2)(c)2.

That 2023 presumption changed the substance of time-sharing decisions. SB 1128, by contrast, was a procedural bill. It did not touch the best-interest factors in F.S. §61.13(3) or the 50/50 presumption. Instead, it tried to accelerate and standardize the process of getting those substantive questions in front of a judge. The two efforts are complementary: 2023 set the default outcome; 2026's SB 1128 tried to speed the path to it.

For paternity cases, the inclusion of F.S. §742.031 is notable. Unmarried parents establishing time-sharing through a paternity action often face longer waits than divorcing parents, and the bill would have extended the same hearing priority and enforcement procedures to that population. Florida treats married and unmarried parents under the same best-interest standard, so harmonizing the procedural rules made practical sense.

It is also worth remembering that none of this affects uncontested cases. When both spouses agree on a parenting plan, time-sharing schedule, and child support, there is no contested evidentiary hearing to expedite. The plan is submitted with the marital settlement agreement, reviewed for the child's best interest, and entered. The delays SB 1128 targeted are a feature of conflict, not of agreement.

Practical Takeaways for Florida Parents

• SB 1128 is not law. Do not rely on it. Florida's current Chapter 61 procedures and the 2023 equal-time-sharing presumption still control your case.
• If you and your co-parent agree, you avoid the backlog entirely. An uncontested parenting plan never needs the kind of contested evidentiary hearing the bill tried to fast-track.
• Temporary time-sharing relief already exists. If you need an interim schedule while a contested case is pending, your attorney can file a motion for temporary relief under existing law, even without SB 1128.
• Enforcement tools are available now. If the other parent is violating an existing time-sharing order, F.S. §61.13(4) already provides remedies, including makeup time-sharing and, in some cases, attorney fees.
• Watch the 2027 session. Procedural fixes that die one year frequently return. Senator Grall has been an active family-law sponsor, and the policy concern behind SB 1128 has not gone away.

If your situation is genuinely uncontested, meaning you and your spouse agree on time-sharing and the major terms, a flat-fee uncontested divorce keeps you out of the contested-hearing backlog altogether. You can learn more about how Florida parenting plans work in our Florida parenting plan guide or read how the 2023 alimony reform reshaped Florida divorce. To see how the process works in your area, our Miami uncontested divorce guide and marital settlement agreement guide walk through the documents and steps.

The Bottom Line

SB 1128 was a thoughtful attempt to attack a structural problem in Florida family courts: parents waiting too long for time-sharing hearings. Its "may" to "shall" language and calendar-prioritization rules would have meaningfully changed how quickly contested cases move. But the bill died in committee on March 13, 2026, and the problem it identified remains for the Legislature to revisit. In the meantime, the surest way to avoid the contested-hearing backlog is to resolve time-sharing by agreement.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Florida legislation changes frequently, and pending bills may be amended or fail to pass. SB 1128 (2026) died in committee and is not law as of this writing. For advice about your specific circumstances, consult a licensed Florida attorney. Antonio G. Jimenez, Esq., is licensed to practice law in Florida (Florida Bar No. 21022).