to stop writing or otherwise threatened him with punitive action if he continued to write her. Also, although we find that contact between Appellant’s sister and Mother to be of marginal relevance, we note that Mother indicated that his sister had not phoned her since 2012, and Mother has had the same phone number since that time. [22] Based upon the record before us there was clear and convincing evidence before the trial court that while E.A. was “in the custody of another person [and] for a period of at least one (1) year [Appellant] ... fail[ed] without justifiable cause to communicate significantly with [E.A.] when able to do so.” Ind.Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(A). Appellant’s consent to the adoption of E.A. was therefore not required. See In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d at 973-975 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion [23] For the foregoing reasons, we
holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers holding that the natural father who was incarcerated failed without justifiable cause to communicate significantly with his daughter and noting that he called his daughter once and that he did not attempt mail communication with her despite his awareness that the adoptive parents were represented by counsel and therefore he could have initiated contact through their counsel or the court to communicate with her holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail holding that a defendant forfeited his right to counsel when he verbally abused and refused to communicate with a succession of attorneys holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends