Clear and convincing evidence established that petitioner child care agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, including formulating a plan for the return of the child, arranging visitation and parenting classes, and contacting respondent at least once a week. The agency cannot be faulted for not arranging counseling before respondent was willing to admit he had a problem ( see, Matter of Crystal Q., 173 A.D.2d 912, 913, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855). Clear and convincing evidence also established that respondent missed 13 out of 33 scheduled visits with the child without providing a reasonable excuse, a failure to maintain contact that alone would constitute an independent basis for a finding of permanent neglect ( Matter of Aisha Latisha J., 182 A.D.2d 498, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 759), and failed to plan for the future of the child by proposing a living arrangement that included the possibility of leaving the child in the care of a girlfriend who, he indicated, had her own children in placement ( see, Matter of Albert T., 188 A.D.2d 934, 937). We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.