IN RE A.S., 715 N.W.2d 769 (Iowa App. 2006)

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., Minor Child, M.S., Mother, Appellant.

No. 6-047 / 05-2134Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed March 1, 2006

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.

A mother appeals from a dispositional order. APPLICATIONDENIED.

Cory Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Melody Butz, Marion, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Ryan Tang, Cedar Rapids, for father.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.

SACKETT, C.J.

Majoli, the mother of Ashley “seeks a reversal of the juvenile court order adjudicating [Ashley] to be a child in need of assistance.” There has not been an adjudication. The juvenile court has discretion to enter an order suspending judgment and imposing “terms and conditions . . . to assure the proper care and safety of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.100 (2005). A suspended judgment pursuant to section 232.100 is not a final order appealable as of right under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1(1). Rule 6.2(1) gives us discretion to grant an interlocutory appeal “on finding that such ruling or decision involves substantial rights and will materially affect the final decision and that a determination of its correctness before trial on the merits will better serve the interests of justice.” Applying the standards of rule 6.2(1), we do not find the suspended judgment in this case suitable for our discretionary review of an interlocutory order. Our decision in this matter follows our supreme court’s example of being “parsimonious about allowing interlocutory appeals.” See Mason City Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Van Duzer, 376 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1985). We therefore deny the application for interlocutory appeal. We do not address the merits of the order. See Duder v. Shanks, 689 N.W.2d 214, 222
(Iowa 2004).

APPLICATION DENIED. Vogel, J. concurs specially. Mahan, J., concurs specially.

VOGEL, J. (concurring specially)

I agree that the application should be denied but do so for a different reason. As there was no adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.96, there could be no disposition under section 232.99. The petition for adjudication should have been dismissed and hence the juvenile court would have had nothing to suspend under section 232.100.

MAHAN, J. (concurring specially)

I concur in the result.

jdjungle