Judge Felix ordered that "Any postings to social media about the case shall be immediately removed," a provision no motion asked for, entered with no notice or hearing on it and no finding about speech, and served on Husband for the first time on August 4, 2026.
Art. I, s. 4 makes a restraint on a parent's speech about his own case presumptively invalid. It issues only on a motion, after notice and a hearing, with findings of a compelling interest that nothing narrower will serve, and the party seeking it carries that burden. The order is served complete on entry, and the parent learns its terms then, not twelve days later because the guardian reported missing pages.
- July 23, 2026: the order appointing a guardian ad litem (Doc 351) was entered as five pages: the odd pages of a nine-page order. N-147
- Aug. 3 to 4, 2026: the guardian wrote that "several of the pages of the Order are missing" and asked only for a complete copy. The next day Judge Felix entered the nine-page Amended Order. Husband received for the first time a waiver of the hearsay rules, a waiver of all claims, and the social media removal order. The order's one finding is that a guardian is in the children's best interest. N-147
- Aug. 4 to 7, 2026: Wife moved for contempt the same morning, asking that Husband's time with the children be cut to alternate weekends as "an appropriate sanction." On Aug. 7, three days after filing, Judge Felix set it for an Aug. 27 hearing, since reset to Oct. 9. Husband's own first-filed discovery motion stood at 827 days on August 21, 2026 with no ruling. N-148, N-151, N-003
Judge Matthew Felix (the Amended Order and the hearing setting). The guardian ad litem (a one-page letter). Wife (the contempt motion). One order, one docket. Every duty here arises from the speech and due process clauses of the Florida Constitution on this order alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 4, Fla. Const. and the First Amendment: a limitation on protected speech is "presumptively invalid" and stands only on findings of a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive means (Romero v. Erik G. Abrahamson, P.A., 113 So. 3d 870, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). Whoever seeks the restraint carries that burden (Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 129 So. 3d 1196, 1199-1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)); here no one sought it. Art. I, s. 9: relief must be relief someone asked for, with notice and a hearing (Neumann; Delgado v. Miller).
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
"Any postings to social media about the case shall be immediately removed," ordered with no motion or hearing.
The 7/23/26 order appointing a guardian ad litem (Doc 351) was entered as a five-page document, only the odd pages of a nine-page order. On 8/3/26 the guardian ad litem wrote Judge Felix that "several of the pages of the Order are missing" and asked for a complete copy. The next day Judge Felix entered a nine-page Amended Order; no paragraph was deleted or reworded, only the restored pages and signature block changed.
Obligations never before served came into existence against Husband on 8/4/26: a waiver of the section 61.403(1) notice requirement, blanket self-executing authority over confidential records, a waiver of the hearsay rules, a duty to fund the guardian's counsel in advance, a prospective waiver of all claims, and: "Any postings to social media about the case shall be immediately removed". No motion, notice, or hearing preceded any of it. The fifteen-day rehearing window closed 8/19/2026. [PENDING]
A restraint on speech about one's own case is presumptively invalid and requires findings of a compelling interest served by the least restrictive means (Romero, 2d DCA); relief no motion requested denies due process (Neumann; Delgado). This order's one finding is that a guardian is in the children's best interest; it says nothing about speech, claims, hearsay, or records. Eleven paragraphs of obligation first reached Husband on 8/4/26, on a non-party's letter asking only for a complete copy. Whether they bind him before service is the live question.
four pages of obligations Husband had never been served, among them a ban on posting about his own case, first reached him on August 4, 2026, entered on a non-party's letter with no motion, no notice, and no hearing
- The guardian ad litem's letter to Judge Felix, "Correspondence to Judge Felix 26.08.03.pdf," 1 p., dated August 3, 2026, Via E-Portal, signed over the title GUARDIAN AD LITEM, copying both parties.
- Full quote: the order "appears to have at some point been printed double-sided, but only one side of each page was captured when it was signed and uploaded into Hover."
- Amended Order, 8/4/26, all 9 pp.; text layers unusable, no OCR used, so the delta was built from page images.
- Doc 351 as entered, all 5 pp.; the Clerk's e-filing footer numbers those five pages 1 through 5 consecutively, so nothing was lost in transmission; four of five page transitions break mid-sentence.
- Doc 337 (2 pp.).
- DIN 365 confirmed from a docket screenshot; Clock-In Event Date 08/04/2026, creation 08/05.
- Rule text pulled 8/17/26 from three concordant secondary sources rather than from the official flcourts publication.
- No certified Clerk copy of Doc 351 is held, so the five-page defect is shown here from a downloaded PDF rather than from the record.
- Process comparison: the appointment itself consumed roughly 15 hours of hearing time across three dates before a two-page order issued; the paragraphs added on 8/4 consumed no hearing time at all. A non-party appointee's letter drew action from the court in one day, while Husband's own first-filed discovery motion stood at 827 days as of August 21, 2026 with no ruling (N-003).
- The guardian ad litem asked only that a complete copy be entered; she did not ask for an amended order, and what the amendment added is the court's act, not hers.
- N-125 carries the grant event; this is a downstream decision point.