The finding of permanent neglect based on respondent mother's failure to plan for the subject child's future should be affirmed since the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship by arranging and facilitating visitation, parenting skills classes and family therapy, respondent attended less than half of the scheduled visits, attended only four therapy sessions and never attended a parenting skills class and thus failed effectively to address the parenting deficiencies that had led to the child's placement. "[A]n agency that has embarked on a diligent course but faces an utterly uncooperative or indifferent parent should nevertheless be deemed to have fulfilled its duty" (Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385; see also Matter of Joshua J., 196 A.D.2d 719).
The dispositional hearing was properly conducted in respondent's absence after she refused the court's request that she remain in the courtroom and contribute to the hearing, and inasmuch as there was no indication that respondent had progressed or would progress toward acquisition of the parenting skills necessary to address the child's significant special needs, Family Court properly concluded that it was in the child's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights and free the child for adoption.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.