but concluding that Rule 6-9 is not applicable in this case does not necessarily impede that purpose. First, Rule 2(a)(2) allows an immediate appeal from an order denying intervention. Second, such an appeal does not prohibit the circuit court from maintaining jurisdiction and conducting hearings, as Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-343(c) (Repl.2008) specifically provides that the circuit court retains jurisdiction to conduct further hearings, pending an appeal from any case involving a juvenile out-of-home placement. See also Harwell-Williams v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 368 Ark. 183, 243 S.W.3d 898 (2006). Moreover, not every order resulting from a dependency-neglect case is automatically appealable under Rule 6-9. See Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Denmon, 2009 Ark. 485, 346 S.W.3d 283 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, as this appeal is governed by
holding that a permanency planning order was not immediately appealable under rule 69 absent a rule 54b certification holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification holding that dismissal of some but not all claims or parties not immediately appealable absent rule 54b certification holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification