DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the evidence established that the petitioner made diligent efforts to assist him in maintaining substantial contact with his children by, inter alia, arranging for bi-weekly telephone calls between the appellant and the children while he was incarcerated, providing him with progress reports of the children during the telephone contacts, arranging for visitation between his mother and the children, and repeatedly requesting that he provide it with a realistic and feasible resource for the children (see, Matter of C. Children, 253 A.D.2d 554; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Diana T., 207 A.D.2d 399; Matter of Osuany G., 186 A.D.2d 476). Moreover, the finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant, while incarcerated, failed to maintain substantial contact with the children for more than one year and failed to offer a viable plan for the children's future, despite the diligent efforts of the petitioner (see, Matter of Phillip DeJohne E., 279 A.D.2d 360; Matter of C. Children, supra).
In addition, the finding that it was in the children's best interest to be adopted by their related foster parents, with whom they have lived and thrived for most of their lives, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Matter of Phillip DeJohne E., supra; Matter of Jayson M., 177 A.D.2d 396).
LUCIANO, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.