Opinion
Submitted September 21, 2001.
October 9, 2001.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez-Torres, J.), dated May 17, 2000, as, after a hearing, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship rights to St. Christopher-Ottilie and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for purposes of adoption.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Carrieri Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph R. Carrieri and Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Gary Solomon and Hughes Hubbard Reed, LLP [Jonathan D. Pressment] of counsel; Christopher M. Bruckmann and Francesca Garson on the brief), Law Guardian for the child.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that there was clear and convincing proof of the appellant's abandonment of his child during the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition in view of the total absence of contact between the appellant and the child (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[b]; Matter of Ronald D., 282 A.D.2d 533; Matter of Oneka O., 249 A.D.2d 233; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 203 A.D.2d 367). Neither the appellant's incarceration nor the child's special needs prevented the appellant from contacting his child or the agency by telephone or letter (see, Matter of Ronald D., supra; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., supra; Matter of Anthony M., 195 A.D.2d 315). While the petitioner, which had determined that adoption would be in the best interest of the child, made no effort to arrange for the child to visit the appellant in prison, it was under no obligation to do so (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[b]; Matter of Julius P., 63 N.Y.2d 477; Matter of Anonymous, 40 N.Y.2d 96; Matter of Tony Reyes R., 266 A.D.2d 222; Matter of Shakim Ravon B., 257 A.D.2d 547). The petitioner did not prevent or discourage contact between the appellant and the child (see, Matter of Oneka O., supra).