Opinion
May 26, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.).
Clear and convincing evidence established that petitioner exerted diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by urging and arranging for respondent to attend and complete a drug rehabilitation program. Respondent's failure to complete such a program does not invalidate those efforts (see, Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385), and also establishes her failure to plan for the future of the child (Social Services Law § 384-b [c]). A fair preponderance of the evidence shows that the order of disposition is in accord with the best interests of the child (Family Ct Act § 623; see, Matter of Gerald M., 112 A.D.2d 6), there being no presumption that those interests will be served best by return to the biological parent (Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148). We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.