Candida M.P. and Peter C., Petitioners-Respondents, v. Chad J.P., Respondent-Appellant. (2003)

 Family Court properly dispensed with the consent of respondent to the adoption of his son pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111(2)(a).   The evidence established that respondent failed for a period of six months to maintain contact with the child, although able to do so, thereby evincing an intent to forego his parental rights and obligations (see id.).   During the period of approximately 11 months preceding the filing of the petition, respondent's only contact with the child consisted of a letter, a card and a gift of $35.  “Such insubstantial and infrequent contact is insufficient to preclude a finding of abandonment” (Matter of Amanda, 197 A.D.2d 923, 924, 602 N.Y.S.2d 461, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 662, 610 N.Y.S.2d 150, 632 N.E.2d 460;  see § 111[6][b] ).  The court rejected the testimony of respondent that the child's mother thwarted his efforts to contact the child, and we perceive no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determination (see Matter of Shaolin G., 277 A.D.2d 312, 313, 716 N.Y.S.2d 71, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 710, 726 N.Y.S.2d 373, 750 N.E.2d 75;  Matter of Ashton, 254 A.D.2d 773, 677 N.Y.S.2d 844, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 817, 684 N.Y.S.2d 488, 707 N.E.2d 443).   Finally, we agree with the court that the belated payment of child support arrears, made by respondent upon learning of the impending adoption proceeding, need not “be deemed a substantial communication by [respondent] with the child or person having legal custody of the child” (§ 111[6][d];  see Matter of Michael E.J., 84 A.D.2d 816, 817, 444 N.Y.S.2d 126).

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

MEMORANDUM: