CURIAM. James Ted Dees seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to prevent relocation of Margaret Dawn Dees, the former wife, and the parties’ minor child. In the order for which review is sought, the trial court finds that it is in the child’s best interests to allow relocation. Having considered the appellant’s responses to this Court’s orders of April 5, 2005 and May 5, 2005, this appeal is hereby dismissed as premature because the trial court has retained jurisdiction over the related issue of visitation. See T.H. v. Department of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); Newman v. Newman, 858 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st
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 order in dependency proceeding was nonfinal where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrallyrelated visitation and support issues holding that an order requiring an employercarrier to provide an ime is a nonfinal order for purposes of invoking appellate jurisdiction holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter holding conclusory statements in visitation dispute were not adequate to support awarding visitation rights