were committed by an adult. (3) The child has previously been found to have committed a delinquent act. (4) The child has previously been placed in a treatment facility outside the child’s home or in a supervised community treatment program established pur suant to section 232.191, subsection 4, as a result of a prior delinquency adjudication. Cassie challenges the juvenile court’s findings with regard to each of the above elements. In addition, she contends the court erroneously concluded placement at the state training school was the least restrictive alternative. Although the State asserts Cassie failed to preserve error on her arguments, we believe Cassie’s direct appeal was sufficient to preserve her claims for our review. See In re N.W.E., 564 N.W.2d 451, 455 (Iowa Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Although Cassie raises a number of issues
holding a direct appeal sufficiently preserves a challenge to delinquency dispositional orders holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders because they are not subject to interlocutory appeal holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived holding the state may appeal orders of dismissal that have the same effect as orders quashing an information