O'SULLIVAN v. KATZ

The evidence in the record sufficiently supports the Family Court's finding that the father failed to meet his burden to show that the child was constructively emancipated ( see Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714; Radin v Radin, 209 AD2d 396).

The child's failure to return the father's telephone calls or contact him "merely indicates that there was a reluctance on the [child's] part to contact him" and not that the child abandoned the relationship with the father ( Radin, 209 AD2d at 396). Further, the child did not completely refuse to have a relationship with the father ( compare Labanowski v Labanowski, 4 AD3d 690; Matter of Chamberlin v Chamberlin, 240 AD2d 908; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Jones-Gamble, 227 AD2d 618).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.