In re Nayarie M.
In a proceeding pursuant to
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Moreover, we reject the father‘s contention that he was prevented or discouraged from visiting or contacting the child during the six months preceding the filing of the petition. It was the father‘s obligation to keep in contact with his child, and the petitioner was not required to exercise diligent efforts to encourage contact between them (see Matter of Gabrielle HH., 1 NY3d 549 [2003]).
Finally, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Family Court to terminate the father‘s parental rights without conducting a dispositional hearing (see Matter of Tashara B., 299 AD2d 356 [2002]; Matter of Little Flower Children‘s Servs. v Clinton Tracy M., 222 AD2d 507 [1995]).
Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.