Opinion
February 27, 1990
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.).
Respondent contends that petitioner's failure to make diligent efforts to unite her and her daughter precludes a finding of permanent neglect. However, the evidence demonstrated that petitioner arranged visitation and attempted to assist respondent in obtaining housing but respondent kept only 4 of 36 scheduled visits between March 1986 and August 1987 and refused assistance in obtaining housing. Failure to maintain contact with a child or infrequent or insubstantial contact constitute grounds for a finding of permanent neglect (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 143). Further, where an agency's efforts are frustrated by "an utterly un-co-operative or indifferent parent", the agency has fulfilled its duty by making reasonable efforts under the circumstances (Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385). In addition, proof of diligent effort is not required where, as here, the parent failed to apprise the agency of her whereabouts for a period of more than six months (Social Services Law § 384-b [e]; Matter of O. Children, 128 A.D.2d 460, 465).
Contrary to respondent's contention, a proper foundation was laid for admission of the agency's case record as a business record (CPLR 4518 [a]) by the testimony of the caseworker with personal knowledge of the business practices of the agency (Sabatino v Turf House, 76 A.D.2d 945, 946).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.