party opposing termination must be given the opportunity to submit additional evidence in an effort to show current and ongoing constitutional violations. This position has been taken by numerous other courts that have considered the issue. See Loyd v. Alabama Dep’t of Corrections, 176 F.3d 1336, 1342 (11th Cir.) (reversing the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing pri- or to terminating the consent decree, reasoning that “[i]t would read all meaning out of [§ 3626(b)(3) ] to force the party opposing termination to show that the consent decree meets the requirements of § 3626(b)(3) and then not provide that party with the opportunity to present evidence on that point”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1061, 120 S.Ct. 613, 145 L.Ed.2d 509 (1999); Berwanger, 178 F.3d at 839-40 (<HOLDING>); Benjamin, 172 F.3d at 166 (“In sum, we
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 district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process holding the district court erred by reviewing the evidence and making an evidentiary ruling on secondtier review holding that the district court may summarily dismiss the motion or determine that a potentially substantial issue or issues of fact are raised in the motion   and hold a preliminary hearing after appointment of counsel holding that the district court erred by letting more than a year pass after the motion for termination was filed without action and then terminating the decree under  3626b2 without making any findings and explaining that the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing if there are disputed issues of material fact