her attorney, without objection, made certain representations as to what the mother’s testimony would be, including details of certain incidents of prior visita tion that did not work out well. Moreover, the mother’s attorney reminded the court that no guardian ad litem had yet been appointed for the child and urged “before the court forces visitation upon her at Baker Correctional Institute, that a guardian ad litem be appointed so there is an advocate for the child so that we can have a full explanation of all this which would be awfully difficult to do in a hearing setting like this.” The trial court declined to require visitation. The trial court’s order of May 23, 2002, is a non-final, non-appealable order. See Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Honeycutt, 609 So.2d 596 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>). This matter, initially filed as an appeal,
holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child holding that review of nonfinal orders determining child custody in child dependency proceedings is not encompassed by rule 9130a3ciii which permits review of nonfinal orders determining child custody in domestic relations cases recognizing that both final and nonfinal orders may be the subject of motions for reconsideration holding that orders entered in dependency proceedings after the entry of the order adjudicating dependency and before an order terminating supervision or jurisdiction are not appealable nonfinal orders holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child