Clear and convincing evidence established that respondent-appellant had permanently neglected the children where, despite the agency's diligent efforts, he failed to plan for their future or maintain contact (Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; see, Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368). Such efforts by the agency are "subject to the rule of reason" ( Matter of O. Children, 128 A.D.2d 460, 464), and the agency "is not charged with a guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments. Indeed, an agency that has embarked on a diligent course but faces an utterly un-co-operative or indifferent parent should nevertheless be deemed to have fulfilled its duty." ( Matter of Sheila G., supra, at 385.) As domestic violence was the primary obstacle preventing family reunification, respondent-appellant's denial of abusive behavior and failure to utilize rehabilitative services evidenced his failure to plan for the future of the children ( see, Matter of Robin PP., 222 A.D.2d 762). He also failed to maintain regular contact with the children ( see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 143).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.