schedule that did not address holiday time-sharing. It is undisputed that the Former Husband failed to raise this issue in his exceptions to the magistrate’s report. Nonetheless, if the errors in the magistrate’s report are clear on its face, the trial court errs in adopting the report. See Torres v. Torres, 98 So.3d 1171, 1171-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Such is the case here. Cf Crittenden v. Davis, 89 So.3d 1098, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“ ‘[W]here visitation is ordered, the non-custodial parent’s right to the child on rotating holidays has become so routine and necessary that to deny it requires factual findings justifying that decision.’ ” (quoting Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So.2d 1003,1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008))); Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So.2d 271, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). In light of the fact that the magistrate
holding the family court erred in failing to hold a mother in contempt after she refused visitation of the father with their children in contravention of family court orders holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue holding that the trial court erred in failing to address holiday visitation holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury holding that the trial court erred in failing to mail the notice of intent to dismiss to the more recent address included on the lawyers letterhead instead of to the address listed on the partys live pleading