Before we can reach the merits of Cynthia’s appeal against the Moores, we must first decide if she filed a timely appeal. A. Timeliness of the Appeal. The district court entered its ruling on the motions for summary judgment on February 1, 2007. In that ruling, the court granted Hills Bank’s and the Moores’ motions for summary judgment. The ruling instructed Hills Bank to submit a proposed decree consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature. On March 7, af ized in Peterson v. Pittman, 391 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Iowa 1986). However, a ruling itself is not a final judgment or decision when the ruling specifically provides for subsequent entry of a final order. In re Marriage of McCreary, 276 N.W.2d 399, 400 (Iowa 1979); see also State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606, 625 (Iowa 2009) (<HOLDING>). In the court’s February 1 ruling, the court
holding that an order terminating parental rights rendered moot an appeal from an initial adjudication and disposition holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication holding an order imposing sex offender registration after the juvenile courts initial disposition can be a final appealable order holding adjudication order based upon a determination on the merits in juvenile court is a final and appealable order