Opinion
November 2, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Palmer, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that when a child-care agency has custody of a child and brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and to reunite the family (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368; Matter of Erica J., 154 A.D.2d 595). "Those efforts must include counseling, making suitable arrangements for visitation, providing assistance to the parents to resolve or ameliorate the problems preventing discharge of the child to their care and advising the parent at appropriate intervals of the child's progress and development" (Matter of Star Leslie W., supra, at 142; Social Services Law § 384-b [f]). The record establishes that the child-care agency fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and reunite this family. Moreover, notwithstanding the mother's claims to the contrary, we also find that she has substantially and repeatedly failed to maintain contact with and plan for the future of the three children (Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; Matter of Orlando F., 40 N.Y.2d 103, 110). Thus, the Family Court properly terminated the mother's parental rights.
Contrary to the mother's contention, we also find that the court properly commenced the fact-finding hearing in her absence after she had failed to appear on three successive hearing dates (see, Matter of Dennis C., 121 A.D.2d 535).
Finally, we reject the mother's claim that her attorney's representation of her at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings was ineffective (see, Matter of Erin G., 139 A.D.2d 737; see also, People v Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 399). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.