The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to avail herself of drug rehabilitation, counseling and parenting skills programs that petitioner agency continually sought and encouraged her to enter (see, Matter of Gilbert, 127 A.D.2d 452, 454), that respondent's visitations were infrequent and sporadic (see, Matter of O. Children, 128 A.D.2d 460), and that when visitation did occur, the contact was in many ways inappropriate and unnurturing and indeed harmful (see, Matter of Daniel C., 169 A.D.2d 691, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 809). "[An] 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-cooperative or indifferent parent should nevertheless be deemed to have fulfilled its duty" (Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385). The dispositional hearing established that the best interests of the child required termination of respondent's parental rights so as to free the child for adoption (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.