HB 971 makes several changes to Florida family-law procedure, focused on speeding up court action in parenting and paternity matters. First, it requires each judicial circuit to have at least one judge available on weekends, holidays, and after hours on weekdays to hear motions to enforce time-sharing orders or agreements, and it directs chief judges to assign a judge for that purpose. Second, it gives priority on the court calendar to certain time-sharing disputes, including initial requests for temporary parental responsibility and time-sharing schedules, and motions to enforce existing time-sharing orders.
For temporary parenting disputes, the bill requires each parent to file a proposed temporary parenting plan, encourages the court to adopt any agreed portions before hearing contested issues, and generally requires a hearing within 30 days unless there is good cause for delay. It also bars the court from requiring mediation as a condition before holding the hearing unless both parties consent. After the evidentiary hearing, the court must issue an order within 30 days. For enforcement motions, the court must set a hearing within 5 business days, with another available judge able to hear the matter if the assigned judge cannot do so in time.
The bill also amends paternity law. In paternity proceedings, the court must issue an appropriate parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, upon motion by a party, rather than merely having discretion to do so. At the same time, the bill deletes existing statutory language that automatically gave the obligee parent all time-sharing and sole parental responsibility, or presumed the mother had those rights, when a paternity judgment lacked parenting-plan provisions. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 971 would alter Florida Statutes sections 26.20, 61.13, and 742.031 by creating expedited procedures for family-court hearings and by changing how parenting plans are handled in paternity cases. It would impose scheduling deadlines on courts, require weekend/after-hours judicial availability for enforcement matters, and make temporary parenting and time-sharing disputes a priority. It would also eliminate default statutory presumptions that favored one parent in paternity judgments without parenting provisions, shifting the focus to court-issued parenting plans when requested by a party.
Sentiment
The bill’s structure suggests a generally pro-expedited-court and pro-parenting-time-sharing approach, with an emphasis on faster access to hearings and enforcement of existing orders. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to address delays in family court and to make time-sharing disputes more promptly heard and resolved.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s mandatory timelines and limits on judicial discretion. Requiring hearings within 30 days for temporary parenting disputes and within 5 business days for enforcement motions could raise concerns about court workload and feasibility. The provision barring mediation as a prerequisite unless both parties consent may also be debated by those who favor mediation as a tool to reduce conflict. In addition, removing the automatic default that gave the obligee parent or mother all time-sharing and sole parental responsibility in certain paternity cases may be viewed as a significant policy shift by parties concerned about predictability in paternity judgments.