Inasmuch as the evidence establishes that petitioner father failed to provide consistent financial support for the child despite a court order and did not maintain "substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child" within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d), the court properly concluded that his consent to the child's adoption was not required ( see Matter of Maxamillian, 6 AD3d 349, 351; Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., 259 AD2d 616).