MICHELLE SAENZ

v.

ROBERTO SANCHEZ, III

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 19, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1476 Lower Tribunal No. 19-11545

________________

Michelle Saenz,

Appellant,

vs.

Roberto Sanchez, III,

Appellee.

An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David Young, Judge. Michelle Saenz, in proper person. Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LOGUE, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. BOKOR, J.

Michelle Saenz, the mother of three minor children, appeals orders

modifying a parenting plan after an emergency hearing, claiming a lack of

due process based on the rushed nature of the hearings and a lack of notice

of the issues ultimately adjudicated by the trial court. The subject orders

suspend Saenz’s timesharing indefinitely and prevent her from having any

contact with all three children; indefinitely grant the father, Roberto Sanchez,

uninterrupted timesharing with the two younger children, K.A.S. and J.E.S.;

direct the oldest child, B.M.S., to be immediately enrolled in a military school;

and direct Sanchez and the children’s Guardian Ad Litem to file police

reports against K.A.S. and B.M.S. due to an incident in which the children

attacked Sanchez. After a review of the record, we agree with Saenz.

Because neither parent requested the remedies ultimately ordered by

the trial court nor noticed the underlying issues for hearing, the hearing—set

only as a case management conference—and resulting orders violated

Saenz’s right to due process. “It is well-settled that a trial court violates due

process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the

party did not request.” Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA

2020); see also Orozco v. Rodriguez-Amadeo, 321 So. 3d 918, 919 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2021) (“[D]ue process requires . . . . affording parties a meaningful

opportunity to be heard, as well as the right . . . to be apprised of all the

evidence upon which an issue is to be decided, with the right to examine,

explain or rebut such evidence.” (quotations omitted)); Logreira v. Logreira,

322 So. 3d 155, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding that order giving father

sole parental responsibility, concealing children’s medical records, and

requiring conditional law enforcement assistance was improper where

neither party requested such relief).¹

While we vacate the orders on appeal for lack of due process, the

parties shall maintain the status quo, including B.M.S.’s enrollment and

attendance in military school, until a new hearing can be conducted. The

trial court shall conduct such hearing on an expedited basis, no sooner than

7 days and no later than 21 days from the issuance of this opinion, and no

motion for reconsideration or rehearing shall toll these deadlines.

Orders vacated; reversed and remanded with instructions.