petition and his affidavit in opposition to partial summary judgment, the father clearly advised the trial court that he sought a custody award without regard to the previous settlement agreement. Further, in his affidavit the father asserted that shared custody of the child with the mother was certainly not in the best interest of the child given certain averments. Because section 61.13(2)(c) requires a trial court to determine all parenting issues in accordance with the best interests of child, and because the father asserted below that the child custody and visitation provisions of the settlement agreement are not in the best interests of the child, the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody and visitation. See Jones v. Jones, 674 So.2d at 774 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for
holding that when a parent asserts that an agreement is not in the best interests of a child the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that the magistrates recommended order terminating temporary supervision and placing the child in permanent guardianship was not supported by competent substantial evidence because the magistrate failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing violated the fathers due process rights holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law