In re Evelyse Luz S.

*330While the agency was not required to make reasonable efforts to return the child to her home because respondent’s parental rights to two of her other children had been involuntarily terminated (see Family Ct Act § 1039-b [a], [b] [6]), it established by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen respondent’s relationship with the child and that despite these efforts respondent failed to plan for the child’s future (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368 [1984]). The agency’s service plan required respondent to…