The appeal was dismissed where the father did not have standing to challenge the court’s ruling on the department’s modification petition. Father contended that the juvenile court abused its discretion by granting the department’s modification petition to rescind a prior order for a psychological exam of the minor, and also erred by finding that adequate services had been provided to the minor. The appellate court found that appellant lacked standing to raise these issues and dismissed the appeal. The process of evaluation of the minor for purposes of placement did not directly affect any legally cognizable interest of appellant’s, and therefore he lacked standing to argue the issue regarding the psychological evaluation. Since the failure to proceed with the evaluation was the sole basis for appellant’s adequate-services challenge, he lacked standing to raise that issue as well. The court further held that ICWA was not a cognizable issue in the appeal, since the modification affected only the information available to the department in making its placement decision, and not any placement or other issue affecting the minor’s status.