The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent, who gave birth to the child in prison where she remained at the time of the issuance of the order on appeal almost seven years later, and who, with the agency's encouragement and assistance, maintained contact with the child through letters, pictures, visits and telephone calls, failed to offer any resource for the child other than continued foster care for as long as she remained in prison (see, Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77;Matter of Omar Garry G., 198 A.D.2d 149, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 753). The agency met its obligation to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by arranging visitation at various prisons, keeping respondent informed of the child's progress, encouraging telephone contact with the child at the foster home, and impressing upon respondent the need to identify a relative who could care for the child during respondent's incarceration (see, Matter of Gregory B., supra at 87). A preponderance of the evidence shows that adoption by her foster parent is in the child's best interests. We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.