PER CURIAM.

T.A.S. is the father of R.A.S. In 2020, R.A.S. was placed in a permanent guardianship at the conclusion of a dependency case. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2020). T.A.S. was ordered to have no contact with R.A.S, but his parental rights were not terminated. See § 39.6221(6), Fla. Stat.

Thereafter, T.A.S. sought to vacate the no-contact order. Here, T.A.S. appeals a final order which denied his motion and amended motion to vacate the no-contact order. The record on appeal is limited as to the procedural history of the involvement of the Department of Children and Families with T.A.S. and R.A.S.

However, the parties acknowledge in their filings in this court that at the time of the motions to vacate, the child was in permanent placement. See § 39.621(7), Fla. Stat. (listing permanent guardianship as a permanent placement).

Because the motions to vacate were denied without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, the trial court erred. See § 39.621(10)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). When a child is in a permanent placement and “a parent who has not had his or her parental rights terminated makes a motion for reunification or increased contact with the child, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the dependency case should be reopened and whether there should be a modification of the order.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motions to vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

T.A.S., pro se, Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.