Rule 137, defendants’ petition for statutory fees was improperly stricken. Although we might ordinarily remand this matter to the trial court to consider defendants’ fee petition anew, we find remand to be unnecessary. In their response to plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ fee petition, defendants argued: “Assuming this Court [i.e., the trial court] determines that the Defendants are required to show bad faith, the Petition for Attorney’s Fees does not require an evidentiary hearing. *** All of the allegations contained in Defendants’ Petition for Attorney’s Fees are reflected in the court file, pleadings and trial record. *** An evidentiary hearing will needlessly add delay and expenses to this matter.” See also No. 1 — 04—2135 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we will conduct our own review
holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding a coa applicant forfeited a claim of error in district courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing by not seeking a hearing in his  2254 proceeding 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 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 where defendants counsel objected to the trial judges evidentiary rulings in evidentiary hearing but did not object to the defendants absence any claim of error due to defendants absence had been waived