IN RE L.S., 715 N.W.2d 771 (Iowa App. 2006)

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S. and I.S., Minor Children, A.S., Father, Appellant, E.M.L., Mother, Appellant.

No. 6-207 / 06-0296Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed April 12, 2006

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. Van Marel, District Associate Judge.

Parents appeal a juvenile court order adjudicating their children to be in need of assistance. APPEALS DISMISSED.

Christine R. Keenan of Jahn, Feilmeyer, Feilmeyer, Keenan
Forbes, P.L.C., Ames, for appellant father.

Shannon M. Leighty, Assistant Public Defender, Nevada, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen H. Holmes, County Attorney, and Richard Early, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Timothy Gartin of Hastings Gartin, Ames, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Abraham and Elizabeth are the parents of two minor children. The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) on February 8, 2006, based on Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2005) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent’s failure to supervise) and (n) (parent’s drug abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). Elizabeth appealed the adjudicatory order on February 21, 2006. Abraham appealed on February 22, 2006.[1]

An order of adjudication in a CINA case, prior to the disposition, is not a final order within the meaning of Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1(1). In re Long, 313 N.W.2d 473, 476
(Iowa 1981). In other words, an adjudicatory order is not appealable as of right. In re W.D., 562 N.W.2d 183, 185 (Iowa 1997).

We may consider the appeal in this case as an application for interlocutory appeal. Iowa R. App. P. 6.1(4). We determine an interlocutory appeal should not be granted. “Speedy disposition is crucial in CINA cases.” In re A.C., 443 N.W.2d 732, 733
(Iowa Ct.App. 1989). A delay in the proceedings would be antagonistic to the children’s best interests. See In re T.R., 705 N.W.2d 6, 12 (Iowa 2005). Interlocutory appeals are rarely permitted prior to the juvenile court’s dispositional order W.D., 562 N.W.2d at 186.

We dismiss the appeals of Abraham and Elizabeth because they were not taken from a final, appealable order.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

[1] The dispositional order was not entered until March 13, 2006, after the filing of the appeals in this case. We are limited to consideration of evidence in the record at the time of the appeal, and we disregard matters outside the record. In re Marriage of Keith, 513 N.W.2d 769, 771 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).