DSS established that the second caseworker made diligent efforts, i.e., "reasonable attempts * * * to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent and child" (Social Services Law § 384-b[f]; see also, Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 393-394; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385-386). The court's determination of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see, Matter of Darsharie C., 237 A.D.2d 922, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 814; see also, Matter of Michael David W., 101 A.D.2d 695, lv dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 604). Respondent failed "`to formulate, and act to accomplish, a feasible and realistic plan'" for his children ( Matter of Orlando F., 40 N.Y.2d 103, 110, quoting Matter of Stephen B., 60 Misc.2d 662, 668, affd sub nom. Matter of Behrman, 34 A.D.2d 527). Although respondent sought to better himself and maintain contact with his children, he was unable to follow through to arrange a permanent solution for the care of his children. The court's determination to terminate respondent's rights is in the best interests of the children ( see, Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 314-315; see also, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148).