Opinion
December 14, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.).
The record supports the finding of Family Court that the child care agency had made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b [f]). The credible evidence contradicts respondent's assertion that the agency's efforts were only routine and not tailored to her situation ( compare, Matter of Anita "PP", 65 A.D.2d 18). The record confirms that the agency made reasonable attempts to assist respondent and that those efforts failed because of respondent's refusal to cooperate. "[A]n agency that has embarked on a diligent course but faces an utterly un-cooperative or indifferent parent should nevertheless be deemed to have fulfilled its duty" ( Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385; Matter of O. Children, 128 A.D.2d 460, 464). That respondent maintained fairly regular visitation with the child does not undermine the finding of neglect, as she failed to take any steps toward planning for the future of the child (Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; see, Matter of Celeste M., 180 A.D.2d 437).
Once permanent neglect has been established, the court's only concern at the dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child; there is no presumption that the child's best interests will be served by return to the natural parent (supra). On the evidence presented here, Family Court properly concluded that the best interests of the subject child required termination of respondent's parental rights and transfer of her guardianship and custody for the purposes of adoption.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.