IN RE: CHARLES B. (2007)

 Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights based on a finding of permanent neglect and freeing the subject children for adoption.   We reject the father's contention that petitioner failed to establish permanent neglect by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [3][g];  Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142-143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824).   The record establishes that the father chose to have no contact with his children for a period of almost five months and that his visitation was sporadic for a period of over seven months, for periods of time both before and after the five-month period.   We thus conclude that petitioner established that, for a period of more than one year, the father failed “ substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of” his children (§ 384-b [7][a];  see Matter of Raychael L.W., 298 A.D.2d 930, 747 N.Y.S.2d 656, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 504, 754 N.Y.S.2d 203, 784 N.E.2d 76;  Matter of Latasha W., 268 A.D.2d 340, 341, 701 N.Y.S.2d 418).   We further reject the contention of the father that Family Court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights.   The record “ establishe[s] that the child[ren]'s best interests dictated [that they] be freed for adoption by [their] foster parent of four years” (Matter of Aliya Cheray Love L., 39 A.D.3d 364, 834 N.Y.S.2d 145).   Finally, the father did not request a suspended judgment and thus failed to preserve for our review his alternative contention that the court should have entered a suspended judgment (see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 791 N.Y.S.2d 242, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 799 N.Y.S.2d 772, 832 N.E.2d 1188).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: