IN THE MATTER OF LENNY

The testimony of the agency's caseworker at the fact-finding hearing provided clear and convincing evidence that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage the parent-child relationship, by referring respondent for parenting classes and counseling and scheduling regular visitation, but was frustrated by an uncooperative parent who missed about one third of the scheduled visits ( see Matter of Jowell Lateefra B., 271 AD2d 366, lv denied 95 NY2d 760; Matter of Shah Ronnie J., 298 AD2d 129). There was a period of four months during which respondent had no contact with either the agency or the child. The finding that termination of parental rights, rather than a suspended judgment, is in the child's best interests is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence showing that at the time of the dispositional hearing the child had been in foster care for over three years and developed a stable and positive bond with the foster mother, and was not having positive, meaningful interactions with respondent ( see Matter of Charles Clarence C., 213 AD2d 294). We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them to be without merit.