IN RE: MYLES N. (2008)

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered December 7, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, found that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Petitioner agency made the requisite diligent efforts (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a];  Matter of Lenny R., 22 A.D.3d 240, 802 N.Y.S.2d 37 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 708, 812 N.Y.S.2d 443, 845 N.E.2d 1274 [2006] ).   Despite a parent's compliance with the service plan and regular visitation with the child, permanent neglect can still be found where he fails to acknowledge or gain adequate insight into the domestic violence problem that led to the foster care placement in the first place (Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 A.D.3d 285, 839 N.Y.S.2d 43 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 812, 846 N.Y.S.2d 602, 877 N.E.2d 652 [2007];  Matter of Galeann F., 11 A.D.3d 255, 784 N.Y.S.2d 482 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 703, 790 N.Y.S.2d 650, 824 N.E.2d 51 [2005] ).   Even though the agency's progress notes in evidence covered only an 11-month period, respondent's testimony confirmed permanent neglect of the child for the requisite period, in accordance with the statute.

 Respondent failed to preserve her contention that an inadequate foundation had been laid for the admission of the agency's progress notes, and we decline to review it.   In any event, the agency caseworker's testimony established that the highlighted portions of the notes were made in the ordinary course of business, and thus admissible as business records (Matter of Isaiah R., 35 A.D.3d 249, 825 N.Y.S.2d 218 [2006] ).

 Respondent's claim that Family Court failed to state the grounds for the permanent neglect finding (see Family Ct. Act § 1051[a] ) does not require reversal “where, as here, the record amply supports Family Court's ultimate finding” (Matter of Amber VV., 19 A.D.3d 767, 769, 797 N.Y.S.2d 144 [2005] ).

 The court's termination of respondent's parental rights was entered on default and is thus not appealable (see Matter of Rosa S., 38 A.D.3d 216, 831 N.Y.S.2d 57 [2007] ).   Were it properly before us, we would affirm.   A preponderance of the evidence supported Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests (see Family Court Act § 631;  Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ) to terminate parental rights and enable the foster mother to adopt the child, given that he has lived in the foster home for his entire six years, and has bonded with his foster mother and her children (Matter of Octavia Lorraine O., 34 A.D.3d 258, 823 N.Y.S.2d 402 [2006] ).