In Suleiman v. Yunis, the Former Husband had obtained an ex parte order changing the children’s custody to him. The Former Wife moved to vacate, which was denied by the trial court. This was error. Former Wife correctly argued that Former Husband did not allege that the children were being threatened with physical harm or were about to be improperly removed from the state. On this basis alone, the ex parte order should have been vacated. Once Former Wife challenged the ex parte order, Former Husband had the burden to show that there was sufficient evidence to support the issuance of the ex parte order. Former Husband failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to support the issuance of the ex parte order. Additionally, Former Husband did not present sufficient, competent evidence that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred and that the best interests of the children would be promoted by a modification of the timesharing schedule. The lower court’s failure to dissolve this order in the absence of any evidence to support its issuance was an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, to the extent that the court changed the parties’ timesharing with the children based upon its conclusion that there was “a violation of shared parenting principles as defined by Florida Law,” this too was error. A decision of the trial court on the issue of temporary custody must be based upon the best interests of the child and not as a sanction for the conduct of either of the parties. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s orders.