Admittedly, incarceration did not prevent him from making collect telephone calls, writing letters or filing petitions in Family Court (see,id.; Matter of Heather QQ. [Patrick RR.], 234 A.D.2d 857; Matter of Regina WW. [Ramon XX.], 182 A.D.2d 920; Matter of Jasmine T. [Mary U.], 162 A.D.2d 756, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 714). With the ability of respondent to visit and communicate with the child presumed (see,Matter of Charles U. [Salvatore V.], supra), and with no obligation befalling petitioner to demonstrate that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage a meaningful relationship between the child and respondent (see, Social Services Law ยง 384-b [b]), we find the requisite clear and convincing evidence to support the determination rendered. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Respondent next argues that his contacts with petitioner were sufficient to preclude a finding of abandonment. We disagree. Respondent's contacts with petitioner, which, as noted, consisted of a telephone inquiry and two meetings with Stearns, were too sporadic and insubstantial to defeat the abandonment petition in light of other undisputed proof that respondent never visited or communicated with his daughter during the period in question ( see, Matter of Michelle S., 234 A.D.2d 800; Matter of Christopher MM., 210 A.D.2d 767, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 807; Matter of Cecelia A., 199 A.D.2d 582) or initiated a custody proceeding as he had been urged to do ( see, Matter of Heather QQ, 234 A.D.2d 857). We also find no merit in respondent's claim that petitioner impermissibly discouraged contact with the child by failing to arrange visitation with her.