IN RE: SAMANTHA K. (2009)

 On appeal from an order terminating his parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and freeing his child for adoption, respondent father contends that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a] ).   Contrary to the father's contention, however, petitioner was relieved of that obligation based on the father's failure “on more than one occasion while incarcerated to cooperate with an authorized agency in its efforts to assist such parent to plan for the future of the child” (§ 384-b[7][e][ii];  see Matter of Eric L., 51 A.D.3d 1400, 1403, 857 N.Y.S.2d 851, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 716, 862 N.Y.S.2d 468, 892 N.E.2d 862).   Further, we conclude that Family Court properly determined that the child was permanently neglected based on the father's failure to plan for the child's future (see § 384-b[7][a] ).   Even where an incarcerated parent makes an effort to develop a feasible plan for the future of his or her child, a finding of permanent neglect is appropriate where, as here, no alternative to foster care for the duration of the parent's incarceration is provided (see Matter of Paige M.J., 256 A.D.2d 1150, 684 N.Y.S.2d 123, lv. dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 904, 690 N.Y.S.2d 177, 712 N.E.2d 115;  Matter of C. Children, 253 A.D.2d 554, 677 N.Y.S.2d 177;  see also Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142-143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824).   We conclude that the court properly determined that termination of the father's parental rights based upon a finding of permanent neglect, while allowing the father to retain visitation rights, was in the child's best interests (see generally Matter of Bert M., 50 A.D.3d 1509, 1511, 856 N.Y.S.2d 758, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 704, 864 N.Y.S.2d 807, 894 N.E.2d 1198).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM.