PETERS, J.
In 1998, Family Court (Nelson, J.) found respondent's children, John (born in 1991) and Donnie (born in 1994), to be neglected; they were placed in the care and custody of petitioner. At a hearing held in 2002, both respondent and the children's biological father consented to John's continued placement in foster care. Family Court determined that John's placement was appropriate and extended it until July 12, 2003. Respondent appeals.
Since the order appealed from has expired ( see Matter of Nikita ZZ. [Victoria ZZ.], 307 A.D.2d 415, 416; Matter of Catherine MM. v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Servs., 293 A.D.2d 778, 779) and no appeal had been taken from the subsequent order which further extended John's placement ( see Matter of Trebor UU. [Tsharnia VV.], 287 A.D.2d 830, 830), the appeal is moot ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714). Had we not found the appeal moot, it would nonetheless be dismissed because no appeal lies from an order entered on consent ( see Matter of Forbus v. Stolfi, 300 A.D.2d 852, 852, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 642; Matter of Amanda PP. [Michael PP.], 260 A.D.2d 951, 952).
Furthermore, even if we were to review respondent's contention that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel, we would find it without merit. While the right to counsel, in a proceeding of this type, is guaranteed by statute (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [i]), to determine whether an individual has received effective assistance, "the evidence, * * * law, and the circumstances of a particular case, [must be] viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see Matter of Matthew C., 227 A.D.2d 679, 682). Counsel here vigorously advocated on respondent's behalf by cross-examining witnesses and rebutting the information set forth by petitioner. Counsel also proffered all available evidence demonstrating respondent's attempts to improve her parenting skills by actively participating in the service plan devised by petitioner. Although respondent further contends that counsel should have objected to John's continued placement in foster care, she failed to demonstrate how this alleged deficiency would have produced a different outcome.
Crew III, J.P., Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.