Z., v. Department of Children and Families, et al.,

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
In the Interest of A.S., a child.
R.Z.,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and
STATEWIDE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OFFICE,
Respondents.
No. 2D2025-3062
March 4, 2026
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County;
Kim Campbell, Judge.
Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, Second District, Fort Myers; and
Jonathan Miceli, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict
and Civil Regional Counsel, Clearwater, for Petitioner.
Bruce Bartlett, State Attorney, and Leslie M. Layne, Assistant State
Attorney, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, for Respondent Department
of Children and Families.
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Caitlin E.
Burke, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office,
Tallahassee, for Respondent Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office.
SILBERMAN, Judge.
In this petition for writ of certiorari, R.Z. (the Mother) asks that we
quash a trial court order that erroneously modified her visitation rights

2
without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. We agree with
her argument and grant the petition.
The Mother has one child, A.S. (the Child). The Child was removed
from the Mother's custody on June 23, 2025, but the Mother was
provided with supervised in-person visitation.
The community-based care provider (CBC) filed a judicial review
social study report on July 9, 2025, and indicated that the Mother's
current court-ordered visitation was "[a] minimum of 2 hours twice a
week." The report lacked any written response to the following prompts
concerning the Mother's visitation: "Duration of the child/parent/sibling
visitation, if any, and agency recommendation for expansion or
restriction of future visitation" and "Statement from current substitute
caregiver regarding any material evidence concerning return of the child
to the parent(s)."
The Guardian ad Litem (GAL) filed her report on July 31, 2025.
The report stated that the Child was currently placed in a safe house and
recommended that she remain there until permanency is achieved. The
report also indicated that the Mother and the Child speak often on
supervised phone calls but expressed concern that the Mother promised
the Child that she will be returned to the Mother's care after the August
judicial review.
The general magistrate held a judicial review hearing/permanency
hearing on August 4, 2025. Following that hearing, the general
magistrate entered her report and recommendations. The report noted
that a shelter order and a separate court order provided the Mother with
supervised visits with the Child twice per week. The report also stated
that the Mother has been compliant with the ordered visitation.
However, the magistrate determined that the Mother would have no in-

3
person visitation because the Child's placement facility was not
recommending or providing in-person visits at that time "per their
protocol." The magistrate eliminated in-person visitation even though
the facility's representative acknowledged that "off-site visitation may be
arranged if [the Department/CBC] supervises the visits."
The Mother timely filed exceptions to this report. The trial court
held a hearing on the Mother's exceptions but ultimately denied relief
and adopted the general magistrate's report and recommendations. The
Mother then filed her petition for writ of certiorari.
"[A] post-dependency order that is subject to future modification for
purposes of child welfare and parental visitation is a non-final order
reviewable by certiorari." M.M. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 189 So. 3d
134, 141 (Fla. 2016). The party seeking certiorari relief must establish
"(1) the order 'depart[s] from the essential requirements of the law,' and
(2) 'result[s] in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that
cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal.' " Id. at 138 (alterations in
original) (quoting Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359, 364 (Fla. 2012)).
A parent's due process rights are violated when a court temporarily
modifies visitation rights without providing the parent notice and an
opportunity to be heard. See Aiello v. Aiello, 869 So. 2d 22, 23-24 (Fla.
2d DCA 2004) (concluding that a parent has "no adequate remedy on
direct appeal for the temporary interference with his visitation" and
granting certiorari relief); see also A.W.P., Sr. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam.
Servs., 10 So. 3d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Aiello and
recognizing that "[t]his court stated that the parent's due process rights
were violated, constituting a miscarriage of justice, and that no adequate
remedy on direct appeal existed for the temporary interference with
visitation"). "[A] party seeking to modify a visitation order in a

4
dependency proceeding . . . must prove that there has been a substantial
change in material circumstances and that modification is required to
protect the child's best interests." Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. P.I., 219
So. 3d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Shelter placement locations are
required to implement dependency court orders, including complying
with "visitation guidelines set forth in the orders." See Johns Hopkins All
Child.'s Hosp., Inc. v. Kowalski, No. 2D2024-0382, 50 Fla. L. Weekly
D2325, D2328 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 29, 2025) ("As the shelter placement,
[Johns Hopkins] was required to implement the dependency court
orders. Those orders required [Johns Hopkins] to comply with visitation
guidelines set forth in the orders, as well as to manage correspondence
between Maya and Mrs. Kowalski.").
Here, the Mother's court-ordered in-person visitation was
eliminated by the placement facility and then approved by the magistrate
based on the facility's protocol. This was done without notice to the
Mother that the magistrate would consider modifying the previously
ordered in-person supervised visitation.
The trial court erred by denying the Mother's well-founded
exceptions and ratifying the general magistrate's report that significantly
modified the Mother's previously established visitation rights without
notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Upon the Child's
removal from the Mother's custody, there were no restrictions that the
Mother's visitation with the Child be merely telephonic. Neither the
judicial review social study report nor the GAL report sought to modify
the Mother's visitation. Neither report gave notice that the previously
ordered in-person visitation rights would be reconsidered by the
magistrate or the court at the upcoming hearings. Indeed, all documents

5
throughout this portion of the dependency proceeding consistently
referenced the Mother's right to twice per week supervised visitation.
The fact that the facility unilaterally eliminated the Mother's in-
person visitation based on a protocol that had not been previously
disclosed, and the magistrate and the trial court approved that change
without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, requires that
we grant the Mother's petition. Simply put, the Mother was divested of
her due process rights because "the modification of visitation was
determined in the absence of written pleadings or a duly noticed
hearing." See A.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 315 So. 3d 126, 128 (Fla.
3d DCA 2020) (citing cases); see also P.I., 219 So. 3d at 268 ("[A] party
seeking to modify a visitation order in a dependency proceeding must
meet the same burden that is applicable to modifications in domestic
relations cases, that is, the party must prove that there has been a
substantial change in material circumstances and that modification is
required to protect the child's best interests." (citing cases)).
Because the Mother's visitation rights were modified without
adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, we grant the
petition for writ of certiorari. See A.W.P., Sr., 10 So. 3d at 135-36; Aiello,
869 So. 2d at 24; Cole v. Cole, 159 So. 3d 124, 125-26 (Fla. 3d DCA
2013).
Petition granted; order quashed.
BLACK and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.