Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the presentment agency established that it made diligent efforts to assist him in maintaining contact with his children and planning for their future ( see Matter of Tynell S., 43 AD3d 1171, 1172). These efforts included facilitating visitation, assisting the father in attempting to locate housing, referring him to family and individual counseling, and advising him that he must attend the visitation and therapy sessions ( see Matter of Kayshawn Raheim E., 56 AD3d 471, 472, lv denied 12 NY3d 702). Despite these efforts, the father failed to maintain contact with the children and to plan for their future for a period of more than one year, from March 21, 2001 through March 22, 2002 ( see Social Services Law § 384 [b] [7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143; Matter of Hasson B., 219 AD2d 649, 650). Following appropriate findings of permanent neglect as to each of the children, the Family Court properly determined that the termination of the father's parental rights as to the children, thus freeing them for adoption, was in their best interests ( see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Joquan Jomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d 868, 869).