IN RE: AARON S. (Anonymous). (2005)

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered November 14, 2003, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he was in violation of the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment of the same court entered January 28, 2003, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 The Family Court may revoke a suspended judgment if it finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes that the parent failed to comply with one or more of the conditions of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Judith D., 307 A.D.2d 311, 762 N.Y.S.2d 813;  Matter of Francisco Anthony C.F., 305 A.D.2d 410, 758 N.Y.S.2d 501;   Matter of Ishia Marie W., 292 A.D.2d 535, 739 N.Y.S.2d 290).   Contrary to the father's contention, the evidence presented at the violation hearing supported the Family Court's determination that the father failed to satisfy certain conditions of the suspended judgment.   Furthermore, the evidence also supports the Family Court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[1][b];  Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;  Matter of Ulawrence J., 10 A.D.3d 658, 781 N.Y.S.2d 609).

 We also reject the father's contention that the Family Court erred in finding that he permanently neglected the child because the agency did not prove that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship.   The agency was not required to present such evidence because the father admitted, inter alia, that he permanently neglected the child by failing to plan for the child's return, and that caseworkers exercised due diligence in working with him (see Matter of Fard Saleem G., 297 A.D.2d 677, 747 N.Y.S.2d 107;  Matter of Rita XX., 279 A.D.2d 901, 719 N.Y.S.2d 747;  Matter of James Carton K., 235 A.D.2d 422, 652 N.Y.S.2d 92;  Matter of Patricia O., 175 A.D.2d 870, 573 N.Y.S.2d 716).