IN THE MATTER OF CAIDEN G.——————————————ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;WALTER G., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,AND MONIQUE (W.)G., RESPONDENT.FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OFCOUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (CATHERINE Z. GILMORE OFCOUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.SARA E. LOWENGARD, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County(Michele Pirro Bailey, J.), entered February 10, 2017 in a proceedingpursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia,determined that respondent neglected the subject child.It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerns thefinding of neglect is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmedwithout costs.Memorandum: Petitioner, Onondaga County Department of Childrenand Family Services (DCFS), commenced this neglect proceeding pursuantto Family Court Act article 10 alleging, inter alia, that respondentfather neglected the subject child by failing to protect the childafter the child disclosed that he had been sexually abused by thepaternal grandfather. DCFS alleged in the amended petition that thefather failed to bring the child to two scheduled appointments at achild advocacy center to be interviewed;that, despite having beendirected by police detectives and DCFS staff to ensure that the childhad no contact with the grandfather while the investigation waspending, the father allowed the child to stay at the grandfather’shouse for two days; and that the child was found sleeping in thegrandfather’s bed. DCFS also alleged that the father had engaged inacts of domestic violence in the presence of the child. The fatherconsented to the temporary removal of the child to the custody ofDCFS, which placed the child in foster care, and subsequently enteredan admission of neglect. Family Court conducted a dispositional andpermanency hearing, and determined, inter alia, that the placement ofthe child in the custody of DCFS and foster care should continue until-2- 465CAF 17-00472the next permanency hearing, approximately six months later.Initially, we note that the father’s challenge to the underlyingfinding of neglect is not reviewable on appeal because it was premisedon his admission of neglect and thereby made in an order entered onthe consent of the father (see Matter of Martha S. [Linda M.S.],126AD3d 1496, 1497 [4th Dept 2015],lv dismissed in part and denied inpart26 NY3d 941 [2015]). The father never moved to vacate thefinding of neglect or to withdraw his consent to the order, and thushis challenge to the factual sufficiency of his admission is notproperly before us (seeid.;see alsoFamily Ct Act § 1051 [f]). Wetherefore dismiss the appeal to that extent. We note, in any event,that the father waived his right to appeal with respect to fact-finding.We reject the father’s further contention that the court erred incontinuing the child’s placement when the child “could have beenreturned home safely with an [o]rder of [p]rotection.” Thedetermination whether to terminate or to continue a placement restswithin the discretion of the court and should not be disturbed absentan improvident exercise of discretion(see generallyFamily Ct Act§ 1065 [a];Matter of Latisha C. [Wanda C.], 101 AD3d 1113, 1115 [2dDept 2012]). Although the evidence at the hearing establishes thatthe father received sexual abuse education and counseling, and that hecompleted domestic violence classes, it further establishes that hehas made little progress in “overcom[ing] the specific problems whichled to the removal of the child” (Matter ofCarson W. [Jamie G.], 128AD3d 1501, 1501 [4th Dept 2015],lv dismissed26 NY3d 976 [2015][internal quotation marks omitted]). We therefore conclude that thecourt’s determination is supported by the record, and we see no needto disturb it (see Matter of Lylly M.G. [Theodore T.], 121 AD3d 1586,1587-1588 [4th Dept 2014],lv denied24 NY3d 913 [2015] [internalquotation marks omitted]).We have considered the father’s remaining contentions andconclude that they are without merit.Entered: June 8, 2018 Mark W. BennettClerk of the Court
