In In re Daniel M. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 878, the father of Daniel acknowledged he had failed to communicate with his son, but claimed any effort to do so would have been futile due to interference from his son's mother. The father also alleged he was unable to visit his son in person because he had become disabled and could not afford to travel from his home in the State of Washington to see his son in Redding, California. (16 Cal.App.4th at p. 880.) The trial court, construing the predecessor statutes, found by clear and convincing evidence that the father had left his son in the mother's custody for a period of one year without communication, and the father's claim that the child's mother interfered with his efforts to contact the child were not persuasive. ( Id. at p. 881.)