plan was beyond the scope of the original stipulation, (2) the plan interfered with their right to interstate travel, and (3) the plan violated Parents' equal protection rights. 4 . We disagree with Parents' assertion that a motion to dismiss automatically includes an objection to the service plan. Here, Parents made no reference to the service plan in their pre-trial motion to dismiss, they did not make any objection when the modified service plan was ordered, nor did they make any objection during the trial itself. 5 . See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-120 (Supp.2000) (modification of order or decree). 6 . Cf. In re W.S., 939 P.2d 196 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (considering appeal of order following disposi-tional hearing); In re E.M., 922 P.2d 1282, 1284 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). © 7 . In addition, Rule 24 of the Utah Rules
holding adjudication order based upon a determination on the merits in juvenile court is a final and appealable order holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding an order imposing sex offender registration after the juvenile courts initial disposition can be a final appealable order recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment