thus, she still had a little over a month to complete her case plan. The report also did not state why permanent guardianship would be in the best interest of the child. Because DCFS failed to notice the mother regarding a permanent guardianship hearing, we find DCFS failed to comply with the statute and due process. See A.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 53 So.3d 324, 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“The procedures utilized in a dependency action must comport with due process principles.”). However, even if we could construe the judicial review social services report as providing proper notice, the mother was still denied due process because the October 27, 2011, hearing was not an evidentia-ry hearing. See T.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 928 So.2d 1291, 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). Although DCFS argues that all parties and
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 defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that when parent asserts that agreement is not in best interests of child trial court must hold 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