MARY E. FOREMAN

v.

THOMAS JAMES

PER CURIAM.

We grant petitioner Mary E. Foreman’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our October 2, 2019 opinion that denied Foreman’s petition seeking certiorari relief, and substitute this opinion in its stead. Because the trial court’s August 14, 2019 Order on Case Management Conference (the “trial court order”) effectively modified the custody of the parties’ minor child for a period of ninety-four days, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing preceded by appropriate notice. Bronstein v. Bronstein, 167 So. 3d 462, 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

Proper notice did not precede the August 13, 2019 hearing that resulted in the trial court order, and therefore, the August 13, 2019 hearing did not comport with due process requirements. Illanes v. Gutierrez, 972 So. 2d 222, 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (granting certiorari relief on a due process basis when notice of a case management conference did not include notice of the trial court’s consideration of a modification of minor child visitation).

The transcript of the hearing below also reveals that the petitioner did not have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Munoz v. Salgado, 253 So. 3d 87, 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

We therefore are compelled to grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court order. Petition granted; order quashed.