A Florida court has reversed an interim temporary timesharing order that modified custody arrangements between a mother and father. The ruling, issued on October 21, 2026, affects Chelsea Henry and David Rice, who are involved in an ongoing custody dispute over their minor child. The decision underscores the importance of due process in family law cases, particularly regarding custody and timesharing arrangements.
The case, Chelsea Henry v. David Rice, was filed under docket number 4D2026-0854. The court's ruling is significant as it highlights the legal requirements for modifying custody arrangements, emphasizing that such changes cannot be made without proper notice and a hearing.
Background
Chelsea Henry and David Rice share a minor child and have been in a legal battle since a final judgment of paternity was issued in 2024. Under that judgment, both parents were granted shared parental responsibility, with Rice having the ultimate decision-making authority regarding healthcare. The court retained jurisdiction to modify the parenting plan, allowing changes based on the child's best interests.
The dispute escalated when Rice filed a motion for contempt in April 2025, alleging that Henry had unilaterally unenrolled their child from a specific school and was often late for timesharing exchanges. He sought to modify the parenting plan and change the child's school placement to one in Indian River County, where he resides.
As the case progressed, both parents filed numerous motions, leading to a series of hearings. A magistrate recommended denying Rice's motion for contempt regarding the modification of the parenting plan, indicating that such changes should be requested through a supplemental petition rather than a contempt motion.
The Ruling
In its ruling, the court found that the trial court had erred in modifying the timesharing arrangement without following proper procedures. The judge noted that the only motion properly noticed for hearing was Rice's motion for contempt, which did not include a request for changing timesharing arrangements.
The court ruled, "A court violates due process when it modifies visitation, changes primary residence, or alters child support when the notice of hearing does not include this issue."
Despite acknowledging that the modification was in the child's best interests, the court emphasized that the trial court had not conducted an evidentiary hearing or found an emergency situation. The ruling stated that the trial court's interim order modified timesharing without the necessary petition and included unrequested relief, such as requiring the mother to exchange the child at a specific location and limiting her timesharing to Indian River County.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the necessity of due process in family law cases, particularly in custody disputes. It clarifies that modifications to timesharing and custody arrangements must follow established legal procedures, including proper notice and hearings. The decision serves as a reminder that courts cannot impose changes based on contempt motions without a substantive basis for such modifications.
The ruling may impact other similar cases in Florida, as it sets a precedent for how courts should handle modifications to parenting plans and timesharing arrangements. Parents involved in custody disputes can expect that their rights will be protected through due process, ensuring that any changes to custody arrangements are made fairly and transparently.
What's Next
Henry's appeal has been successful, resulting in the reversal of the interim timesharing order. The case may now return to the trial court for further proceedings, where the father may need to file a proper petition for modification to address any future changes to the parenting plan. Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Rice plans to appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending.