Opinion
February 10, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.).
Clear and convincing evidence established that petitioner exerted diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by keeping respondent informed about his child's special needs, progress and medical condition, arranging visitation, providing respondent with referrals for parenting skills and counselling, and urging respondent to learn of his daughter's problems (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [f]; Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 A.D.2d 425). Faced with "`an utterly un-co-operative or indifferent parent'", the agency fulfilled its statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to assist respondent (supra, at 426, quoting Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385). Furthermore, respondent's plan was not realistic (see, Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 125), inasmuch as the child's grandmother, who was in her seventies and had had a stroke, was physically unable to care for respondent's daughter (see, Matter of Miguel S., 140 A.D.2d 202, 205).
With respect to the business records of the previous agency that merged with petitioner, any error in their admission was harmless since the testimony of the caseworker and of respondent otherwise clearly established permanent neglect (see, Matter of Saffert, 57 A.D.2d 758).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.