Clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of petitioner's supervising caseworker, drug test reports, and the termination summary of respondent's therapist, supports Family Court's finding that appellant, by failing to complete a drug treatment program within the statutorily relevant time frame, failed to plan for, and thus permanently neglected, her son (see, Social Services Law § 384-b(7); Matter of Natajha Starr M., 204 A.D.2d 232, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 806). Although petitioner agency diligently endeavored to help respondent address the substance abuse problems preventing the return of her child, and, in this connection, referred her for psychotherapy and arranged for her to attend a drug rehabilitation program, respondent, despite petitioner's urging, failed to avail herself meaningfully of the offered therapeutic services (see, id.; Matter of Michael M., 172 A.D.2d 152). No basis exists to disturb Family Court's findings crediting the caseworker's testimony over that of petitioner.
The evidence presented at the dispositional hearing sufficed to support Family Court's determination that it was in the subject child's best interests to be freed for adoption.
We have reviewed respondent's remaining contention and find it to be unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.