Darren L. G., Respondent-Appellant. v. << (2001)

Family Court properly determined that the consent of respondent father to the adoption of his child is not required.   As the father of a child born out-of-wedlock, respondent was required to satisfy both the support and communication provisions of Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) (see, Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 N.Y.2d 1090, 1091, 489 N.Y.S.2d 882, 479 N.E.2d 227). The undisputed evidence establishes that respondent failed to provide financial support for the child although able to do so (see, Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., 259 A.D.2d 616, 617, 686 N.Y.S.2d 774).   In addition, respondent failed to establish that he had either monthly visits with the child or regular communication with the child or the child's mother, who had custody of the child (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d][ii], [iii];  Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., supra, at 617, 686 N.Y.S.2d 774), and “other than general claims of attempted contacts respondent offered no objective proof to substantiate his alleged attempts at visitation” (Matter of James Q., 240 A.D.2d 841, 843, 658 N.Y.S.2d 535;  see, Matter of James L., 173 A.D.2d 941, 942-943, 569 N.Y.S.2d 806).   We have considered respondent's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: