The record supports Family Court's determination that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts, respondent permanently neglected the subject children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373). Petitioner devised a three-part plan aimed at reuniting respondent with the children; respondent was counseled, referred to a therapy program, court-ordered as a result of a prior finding of abuse, and was advised of the importance of remaining in therapy. She, however, was evasive and uncooperative, and attended irregularly. The record does not support respondent's contention that she advised her caseworker of the reasons for her irregular attendance. On the contrary, respondent insisted that she was regularly attending. Moreover, the record shows that respondent was resistant to therapy, refusing to come to terms with the reason why she was ordered to attend. Respondent's inability, since 1993, to gain insight into her behavior cannot be blamed on the agency (Matter of Chianti FF., 205 A.D.2d 849, 851), nor was the agency obligated to accommodate her lack of insight by formulating an alternative plan (see, Matter of Michelle F., 222 A.D.2d 747, 749).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.