This answer is only partial since it addresses only the second half of the question.
Determinism means that all events are completely explained by other events. Any deviations from that definition need to be explained. As the Information Philosopher puts it:
Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
I am emphasizing the "every" as "all" and the "inevitable and necessary" as "completely explained" to more easily represent the negative of determinism.
One negates determinism by finding just one event that is not completely explained. There is no requirement that that event be absolutely inexplicable by prior events. There may be many influences on that event. There is no requirement that all events be such. Only one event that is not completely explained by prior events is all we need to negate determinism.
Do such events exist? Yes, one need look only at quantum mechanics to find them. Quantum mechanics becomes physical evidence against determinism. Given that physical evidence all one has left as the Information Philosopher describes it is "adequate (or statistical) determinism" which is adequately predictable.
Here is what the Information Philosopher who identified ten dogmas of determinism says about the belief in determinism :
Belief in strict determinism, in the face of physical evidence for indeterminism, is only tenable today for dogmatic philosophy.
So, to say, "is free will always there so that he always has absolute control of his emotions and actions" is describing a straw man, not free will. Using a definition of free will as "always" having "absolute control" is to set up a straw man argument.
See Mark Balaguer's Free Will for further clarification of this problem from a physicalist perspective. He looks at free will as a problem to be settled by neuroscience, not philosophers, which is no where near solved today.
The other part of this question is more difficult and more interesting and I can only speculate on an answer. The OP asks "does an amount of time pass before free will kicks in and the man makes a decision that reflects the self he’s created".
Robert Kane presents the ideas of alternate possibilities, ultimate responsibility and self-forming actions to ground his "event-causal libertarian view of free will". (page 268) This would be close to the idea of a self that one has created.
This, however, restricts free will to humans. Could other species have it as well? Could even non-living systems have it? Does it really require an intellect?
Since I don't have answers for those questions, this answer to the other half of the OP question is only partial except for the reference to Kane.
Balaguer, M. (2014). Free will. MIT Press.
Information Philosophy, "Ten Dogmas of Determinism" http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/dogmas/
Kane, R, "Free Will: New Foundations for an Ancient Problem" reprinted in Pereboom, D. (Ed.). (2009). Free will. Hackett Publishing.