Respondent's excuse for his absence on repeatedly adjourned court dates, namely, lack of funds to travel to New York and need to stay with his ill wife in Michigan, was properly rejected for lack of substantiation; indeed, it appears that respondent had the funds and opportunity to travel to New York on other occasions ( see Matter of "Male" Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403; Matter of Danielle R., 239 A.D.2d 305). Nor did respondent substantiate his claims that, contrary to the evidence at inquest, he maintained contact with the children and cooperated with the agency's efforts to strengthen his relationship with them ( see Matter of Derrick T., 261 A.D.2d at 108), or that the children's adoption by their foster parent would not be in their best interests ( see Matter of Shaka Efion C., 207 A.D.2d 740).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.