Regardless, since you are too lazy to go find it, here it is again.
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2006,%202003/2D02-5394.pdf
The court stated on page nine that this was not a de novo review, and upon reading the entire ruling, it became evident that it was the guardianship court that actually reviewed the evidence requested in the appeal. The presiding judge was Greer in the guardianship court. Therefore, the appellate court DID NOT review any new evidence, but left it up to Greer. They did not see or hear any of the evidence that Greer did not allow. You contention is wrong.