W. W. FATHER OF N. S., a child,

Petitioner,

v.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

PROGRAM and DEPARTMENT 

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0369

Opinion filed March 23, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Randi E. Dincher, Gainesville, for Petitioner.

Kelley Schaeffer, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford; Ward L. Metzger, Florida 

Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville. 

PER CURIAM.

ORDER ON JURISDICTION

W.W. seeks review of an Order denying W.W.’s motion to reinstate supervised 

visitation and his motion to declare section 39.0139, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional, 

by petition for writ of certiorari. Having determined that review of this postdependency final order is properly by appeal rather than by petition for writ of 
certiorari, we treat the petition as having invoked our appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1).

This Court, along with the Fifth and Fourth Districts, has recognized that an 

order entered on a post-dependency motion seeking authorized relief that fully resolves 

the issues raised in the motion is generally reviewed by appeal pursuant to Florida Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See J. S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 

So. 3d 808, 809 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); D. T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 

So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming order denying motion for 

reunification); see also R. M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029, 1031

(Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (finding jurisdiction to review post-disposition dependency order 

pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), and rejecting the argument that there is never any review 

by appeal of non-final orders in dependency cases); A. B. v. Dep’t of Children & 

Families, 834 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reviewing, pursuant to rule 

9.130(a)(4), dependency order directing no contact between the mother and dependent 

child).

Recent amendment to rule 9.130(a)(4), however, requires us to revisit the 

question of our jurisdiction to review such orders. As of January 1, 2015, rule 

9.130(a)(4) was amended to remove the phrase “orders entered after final order on 

authorized motion.” See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure,

2014 WL 5714099, *7 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2014). The accompanying Committee Notes 

2
provide that the “deletion clarifies that non-final orders entered after a final order are 

no more or less reviewable than the same type of order would be if issued before a 

final order,” and indicate that the amendment is intended to resolve conflicting 

approaches to review that have arisen as a result of the stricken language. This view is 

consistent with the view expressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Clearwater Federal 

Savings & Loan Association v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla. 1976), which 

provides for appeal of post-judgment orders noting that many post-judgment orders are 

not really non-final in the same way as interlocutory orders. A post-dependency order 

on an authorized motion that fully resolves the issues raised by the motion is final in 

nature, and is therefore reviewable as a final order. 

In light of this recent amendment to rule 9.130(a)(4), we conclude that 

henceforth, orders entered on post-dependency motions seeking authorized relief that 

fully resolve the issues raised in the motionsshall be reviewed as final orders pursuant 

to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1).

LEWIS, C. J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

3