In light of clear and convincing evidence that respondent father, while incarcerated, inexcusably failed to communicate with the subject children or petitioner agency during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the instant petition, Family Court properly determined that respondent had abandoned his children within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b(5)(a) (see, Matter of Jasmine T., 162 A.D.2d 756, 757, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 714;see also, Matter of Ulysses T., 66 N.Y.2d 773; Matter of Shaiane W., 254 A.D.2d 513; Matter of Angel Takima C., 242 A.D.2d 536). Attempts by the paternal aunt to visit with the children are not attributable to respondent for the purpose of negating the inference of abandonment (see, Matter of Tuwahn Crawford, 153 A.D.2d 108, 111). Finally, Family Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to hold a dispositional hearing prior to terminating respondent's parental rights (see, Matter of Angel Takima C., 242 A.D.2d, supra; Matter of Juan Andres R., 216 A.D.2d 145).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.