DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that there was clear and convincing proof of the appellant's abandonment of his child during the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition in view of the total absence of contact between the appellant and the child (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[b]; Matter of Ronald D., 282 A.D.2d 533; Matter of Oneka O., 249 A.D.2d 233; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 203 A.D.2d 367). Neither the appellant's incarceration nor the child's special needs prevented the appellant from contacting his child or the agency by telephone or letter (see, Matter of Ronald D., supra; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., supra; Matter of Anthony M., 195 A.D.2d 315). While the petitioner, which had determined that adoption would be in the best interest of the child, made no effort to arrange for the child to visit the appellant in prison, it was under no obligation to do so (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[b]; Matter of Julius P., 63 N.Y.2d 477; Matter of Anonymous, 40 N.Y.2d 96; Matter of Tony Reyes R., 266 A.D.2d 222; Matter of Shakim Ravon B., 257 A.D.2d 547). The petitioner did not prevent or discourage contact between the appellant and the child (see, Matter of Oneka O., supra).