this court to govern appeals in dependency-neglect cases. We have further explained that the purpose of Rule 6-9 is to expedite the appellate process in dependency-neglect cases by curtailing extensions and establishing time lines. Ratliff v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 371 Ark. 534, 268 S.W.3d 322 (2007) (per curiam). hRule 2(a)(2) provides that an appeal may be taken from “[a]n order which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken, or discontinues the action.” Although the right to appeal the denial of a motion to intervene is not specifically set forth in this rule, this court has recognized that such an order is appealable pursuant to Rule 2(a)(2). See Duffield v. Benton County Stone Co., 369 Ark. 314, 254 S.W.3d 726 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Billabong Prods., Inc. v. Orange City Bank,
holding that similar agreement allowed the defendant to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress holding that an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene as a matter of right is allowed under rule 2a2 holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party