In the Int. of: N.B., Appeal of: BCCYSSA, 260 A.3d 26

CYS filed dependency petitions (2018) for N.B. based on Parents’ methamphetamine and alcohol abuse; Child remained under court supervision.
At an October 14, 2020 permanency/status hearing the trial court ordered Father to use a Soberlink alcohol-monitoring device (four tests/day) and stated CYS would purchase and maintain the device while Father was unemployed.
The court estimated acquisition cost ≈ $400 and monthly monitoring ≈ $200; CYS’s counsel did not object at the hearing and acknowledged he "understood."
The signed October 30, 2020 order directed CYS to pay for acquiring and monitoring Soberlink and omitted a clause in CYS’s draft stating Father would assume costs once employed.
CYS appealed, arguing the court erred in ordering CYS to pay and in striking the employment-based payment provision; Parents moved to quash the appeal.
The Superior Court held the order was an appealable collateral order but found CYS waived its challenge to CYS-funded Soberlink for failing to object; the court also affirmed the trial court’s editing of the written order and affirmed the October 30, 2020 order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (CYS)	Defendant's Argument (Parents/Trial Court)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by directing CYS to obtain and maintain a Soberlink device for Father	CYS: Court sua sponte ordered an expensive monitoring device that CYS should not have to pay for; record didn’t show Soberlink was necessary and CYS had no opportunity to propose alternatives	Parents: CYS failed to preserve the issue by not objecting at the hearing; the court’s direction was within its authority to protect the child	Waived: CYS failed to contemporaneously object at the hearing, so the claim is waived; no relief granted
Whether the trial court erred by striking CYS’s proposed written provision that Father would pay once employed	CYS: The signed order did not reflect the court’s verbal on-the-record direction and the court should have included precise language permitting Father to assume costs upon employment	Trial court/Parents: The court’s verbal order conditioned Father’s assumption of payment on a later, fact-specific determination (“at some point in time” after employment), not immediate payment upon any employment	Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion in striking the drafted language because the written order changed the timing and required a fact-specific showing of Father’s ability to pay

In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2005) (interlocutory collateral-order appeal allowed where agency was ordered to provide a service it had discretion to fund)
In the Interest of J.M., 219 A.3d 645 (Pa. Super. 2019) (discusses limits on appealability of juvenile-court orders)
Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (contemporaneous-objection rule: appellate courts should not relieve trial counsel’s failure to object)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency matters: accept trial court’s credibility/findings and review for abuse of discretion)
In the Interest of L.V., 209 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explains preservation requirements for appellate review in dependency cases)
In re A.W., 187 A.3d 247 (Pa. Super. 2018) (failure to timely object waives due process and other claims on appeal)