A juvenile has a right to appeal the order of their final disposition. A juvenile does not have a right to appellate review of an order that merely continues his or her commitment in the same manner and maintains the status quo. However, orders that modify the original dispositional order by adding requirements are subject to review.

In juvenile proceedings, the final order from which a direct appeal may be taken is the order of disposition, entered after the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent.

"[The] [a]ppellant has the responsibility to make sure that the record forwarded to an appellate court contains those documents necessary to allow a complete and judicious assessment of the issues raised on appeal. For purposes of appellate review, what is not in the certified record does not exist." An incomplete record may result in waiver of an issue.

A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by raising the claim during the sentencing proceedings. Each basis for the challenge must be stated with specificity so that the court has an opportunity to reconsider or modify the sentence on these bases. A post-sentence motion alleging that a sentence was unduly severe and an abuse of discretion will not preserve a claim that the court failed to state its reasons for the sentence on the record.

The Post-Conviction Relief Act is not applicable to juvenile cases. Therefore, a motion for permission to appeal nunc pro tunc is the juvenile's only means of vindicating his or her right to effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the trial court cannot limit itself to granting such a motion only when the there is fraud or a breakdown in the courts.

There is a narrow exception to the rule that only final orders are appealable. A non-final order is appealable so long as the order is separable from and collateral to the main cause of action, the right is too important to be denied review, and the question presented will be irreparably lost if the appeal is delayed until the end of the case.

A judicial abuse of discretion is more than an error of law. An abuse of discretion by the adjudicatory hearing judge is an erroneous judgment that ignores or misapplies the law, is manifestly unreasonable, or arises from bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence or the record.

Although the Juvenile Act itself does not afford a right of appeal, the Pennsylvania Constitution does. However, because the Juvenile Act is silent on this topic, juvenile appeals are governed by the same rules of procedure as adult appeals, which means that the appellate court may quash the appeal of a juvenile who is a fugitive.

A child may not be committed to a placement for an initial period longer than the maximum sentence they could have received as an adult. Placement after a summary shoplifting adjudication, which carries a maximum adult penalty of 90 days in jail, therefore permits the child to be sent to placement based upon the initial disposition but requires a disposition modification hearing at 90 days in order for the court to lawfully extend the amount of time in placement.

There is no rebuttable presumption that a juvenile is incompetent to waive constitutional rights without first having an opportunity to consult with an interested and informed adult. A totality of the circumstances analysis should be applied to determine whether a juvenile's confession is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given, which must consider factors including the suspect's age, experience, comprehension, and the presence or absence of an interested adult.