The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that neither respondent nor anyone on her behalf contacted it during the six-month period preceding the filing of the petitions. The court implicitly rejected respondent's claim that she telephoned the agency after she was incarcerated, and this credibility finding is entitled to deference ( see Matter of Charles Clarence C., 213 A.D.2d 294). In any event, even if respondent's testimony were credited, the claimed calls were not contacts sufficiently substantial to avoid a finding of abandonment ( see Matter of Stephen Sidney W., 283 A.D.2d 153; Matter of Jackee Shertte C., 269 A.D.2d 229, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 757).
Since the oldest child, Donelle, was over 14 years old, had no prospects of adoption and would not, in any event, consent to adoption, no useful purpose was served by the termination of respondent's parental rights to him ( see Matter of Miguel Angel Andrew R., 263 A.D.2d 354). Since he is now over 18 years old, there is no need to remand for further dispositional proceedings.
The record amply supports the court's determination that termination of respondent's parental rights to the seven younger children was in the children's best interests ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148). Respondent has no relationship with the children who have been in foster homes for many years, and the children have loving foster parents with whom they have bonded and who, in contrast to respondent, have demonstrated that they understand and are able to address the children's special needs. Contrary to respondent's contention, a suspended judgment would not have been appropriate since there was no evidence that respondent had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the children ( see Matter of Charlene Lashay J., 280 A.D.2d 320; Matter of Latasha W., 268 A.D.2d 340).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.