Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.

Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn, NY (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for respondent.

Maricel Gonzalez, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the children.

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the mother appeals from three orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Queens County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), dated February 28, 2019. The orders, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced these three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to terminate the mother's parental rights to the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purposes of adoption. The mother appeals. We affirm the orders insofar as appealed from.

The Family Court's finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The petitioner met its initial burden of establishing that it undertook diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the mother and the subject children by, among other things, developing an appropriate service plan, scheduling regular parental access, and referring the mother for services (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The record shows that, despite the petitioner's diligent efforts, the mother failed, for a period of at least one year, substantially and continuously or repeatedly, to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the children, although physically and financially capable of doing so (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Maria R.O. [Patrick M.], 176 AD3d 1222, 1222-1223 [2019]).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the redacted progress notes were properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]). In any event, even apart from the progress notes, the testimonial evidence of the mother's failure to maintain contact with and plan for the subject children, including the mother's own testimony, was sufficient to support a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Melisha M.H. [Sheila B.R.], 119 AD3d 788, 788-789 [2014]).

Furthermore, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, we agree with the Family Court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Morgan A.H. [Ta-Mirra J.H.], 172 AD3d 861, 862-863 [2019]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Iannacci and Wooten, JJ., concur.