An order providing that all prior court orders not inconsistent with the current order remain in effect does not revive the appealability of the prior order which has already become final. The juvenile court sustained a fourth Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition and placed the minor on probation. As part of the disposition, the juvenile court stated that “[a]ll prior orders not in conflict remain in effect.” The minor then tried to challenge some of the probation conditions imposed at the dispositional hearing on the third petition. The Court of Appeal held that challenges to those conditions were not appealable because the orders on the third petition became final 60 days after they were imposed. The court rejected the minor’s argument that the “all prior orders” provision revived the right to appeal those probation conditions. The court concluded that the provision did not reimpose the orders, but rather interpreted the language to mean that the prior orders of the juvenile court were not terminated or revoked by the current dispositional order. The dissent opined that while appellant was precluded from appealing the 2008 dispositional order itself, the “all prior orders” provision adopted and reimposed any probation conditions that did not conflict with the current ones and so those conditions were appealable at this time. The dissent noted that in juvenile cases, a dispositional order on a new section 602 petition terminates and displaces any prior dispositional orders. (See In re Ruben M. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 690, 699.)