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

v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM and DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES , Respondent s . ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXP IRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0369

Opinion filed March 23, 2015. Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Randi E. Dincher, Gainesville , for Petitioner. Kelley Schaeffer, Guardi an 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 dec lare section 39.0139, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional, by petition for writ of certiorari. Having determined that review of this post

dependency final order is proper ly by appeal rather than by petition for writ ofcertiorari, 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 f ully 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 Childr en & 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 o rder 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 9.1 30(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

2provide 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 ha ve arisen as a result of the stricken language. This view is consistent with the view expressed by the Florida S upreme C ourt in Clearwater Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Sampson , 336 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla. 1976), which provides for appeal of post

- judg ment 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 re viewable 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 motion s seeking authorized relief that fully resolve the issues raised in the motion s shall 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