Respondent failed to appear at the dispositional hearing, his counsel did not participate, and he has not offered any explanation for his failure to appear. Thus, the order of disposition was entered upon respondent's default, and it is not appealable by him ( see Matter of Raymond Anthony S., 309 AD2d 520).
The agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to assist respondent to reunite with the child and that respondent rejected assistance in obtaining housing, although he was continually unable on his own to find a suitable place to live with the child, and refused to plan for the return of the child separately from the mother, despite his stated understanding that the child was not safe in the mother's care ( see Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368; Matter of Kimberly Rosemarie S., 211 AD2d 594, lv denied 85 NY2d 809).