"An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is, inter alia , a manifestly unreasonable judgment or a misapplication of law." In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing In re N.E., 787 A.2d 1040, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2001).Under the Juvenile Act, courts must conduct regular permanency hearings to review the permanency plan of the child.

Id. at 649, 661. In In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2005), the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) appealed from an order that directed DHS to provide home telephone service to the dependent child's father. J.R., 875 A.2d at 1114.

Id. at 649, 661. In In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2005), the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) appealed from an order that directed DHS to provide home telephone service to the child's father. J.R., 875 A.2d at 1114.

We review an order requiring a child welfare agency to fund a particular service under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111, 1114 (Pa.Super.2005). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is, inter alia, a manifestly unreasonable judgment or a misapplication of law.”

Id. at 649, 661. In In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2005), the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) appealed from an order that directed DHS to provide home telephone service to the dependent child's father. J.R., 875 A.2d at 1114.

Id. "'An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is, inter alia, a manifestly unreasonable judgment or a misapplication of law.'" In re A.T., 81 A.3d 933, 936 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2005)). "Dependent child."

An abuse of discretion is "not merely an error of judgment, but is, inter alia, a manifestly unreasonable judgment or a misapplication of law." C.K., 165 A.3d at 941 (citing In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

However, our courts have explained that because the focus of the Juvenile Act is on the dependent child, as opposed to the parents, any services for parents must directly promote the best interests of the child. C.K., 165 at 942 (citing In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2005)). We have also stressed that the agency is not expected to do the impossible and is not a "guarantor of the success of the efforts to help parents assume their parental duties."

This Court summarized the conflicting determinations as follows: Sometimes we have placed the emphasis on the underlying dependency adjudication and disposition, even if the case has progressed into the permanency review stage, see [In re] Tameka M., [534 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 1987) (en banc); In re] N.E., [787 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Super. 2001); In re] J.R., [875 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2005). O]ther times we have focused on one of the broad goals in the particular stage of the case, see [In re] J.S.[, 980 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2009),] and [In re] W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011); and still other times we have looked to the purpose of the particular hearing, see [In re] T.R.[, 665 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 1995), rev'd on other grounds, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999) (plurality),] and [Interest of] N.M., [186 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. 2018)].

After reviewing the record, we cannot determine that this conclusion was manifestly unreasonable. See In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2005).