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 father's abandonment of Jasmin T. during the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition (see, Social Services Law 384-b[b]; Matter of I.R., 153 A.D.2d 559, 560; Matter of Rose Marie M., 94 A.D.2d 734). The father failed to show a good reason for his failure to contact or communicate with his daughter (see, Matter of Charmaine T., 173 A.D.2d 625, 626-627). Neither the order of protection, the father's drug use, nor his incarceration prevented him from contacting his child or the agency by telephone or by letter (see, Matter of Anthony M., 195 A.D.2d 315; Matter of Dawntal Danielle C., 170 A.D.2d 375; Matter of Thomas G., 165 A.D.2d 729; Matter of I.R., supra; Matter of Ulysses T., 87 A.D.2d 998, affd 66 N.Y.2d 773).