ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that the father's consent was not necessary for the adoption of the child. The father did not at any time financially support the child and did not maintain "substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child" within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d). Thus, his consent to the adoption of the child was not necessary under the statute (see, Domestic Relations Law 111[d]; Matter of Shaolin G., 277 A.D.2d 312; Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., 259 A.D.2d 616).
The fact that the father was incarcerated during this time period did not relieve him of the responsibility to establish communication with his child (see, Matter of Derrick J., 287 A.D.2d 503, lv denied N.Y.2d [Jan. 8, 2002]; Matter of Ronald D., 282 A.D.2d 533).
There is no merit to the father's claim that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel based on the failure of his counsel to call certain witnesses to testify (see, People v. Chung, 276 A.D.2d 708; People v. Wicker, 229 A.D.2d 602).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.