The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (seeEschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ). Supervised parental access is appropriate where it is established that unsupervised parental access would be detrimental to the child (seeIrizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ). The determination of whether parental access should be supervised is a matter left to the trial court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (seeid.

Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the order of fact-finding and disposition or the order of protection (see Matter of Vien v Bala-Gbogbo, ___AD3d___, 2021 NY Slip Op 02166 [2d Dept]). "Supervised parental access is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised parental access would be detrimental to the child" (Matter of Masri v Masri, 171 AD3d 1183, 1185; see Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913, 914). "The determination of whether parental access should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the hearing court, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Masri v Masri, 171 AD3d at 1185; see Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d at 914; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839).

Here, the Family Court considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination to award sole legal and residential custody of the children to the father, which was consistent with the opinion of the court-appointed forensic psychologist, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (seeEschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 171–172, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Vaysman v. Conroy, 165 A.D.3d at 955, 85 N.Y.S.3d 536 ; Matter of Stokes v. Stokes, 154 A.D.3d 952, 953, 62 N.Y.S.3d 534 ; Matter of Yearwood v. Yearwood, 90 A.D.3d 771, 774, 935 N.Y.S.2d 578 ).Supervised parental access is appropriate where it is established that unsupervised parental access would be detrimental to the child (seeMatter of Masri v. Masri, 171 A.D.3d 1183, 1185, 99 N.Y.S.3d 61 ; Matter of Henry v. Tucker, 157 A.D.3d 892, 893, 67 N.Y.S.3d 475 ; Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914–915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ). The determination of whether parental access should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the hearing court, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (seeMatter of Masri v. Masri, 171 A.D.3d at 1185, 99 N.Y.S.3d 61 ; Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d at 914–915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ).

Here, the Family Court's determination as to the best interests of the children with respect to custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed. Supervised parental access is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised parental access would be detrimental to the child (seeIrizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ). The determination of whether parental access should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the hearing court, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (seeid.

"Since custody and visitation determinations necessarily depend[ ] to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the court's findings'" (Matter of James M. v Kevin M., 99 AD3d 911, 913, quoting Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623, 623). Thus, the determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the Family Court and should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blazek v Zavelo, 127 AD3d at 854; Matter of Anthony M.P. v Ta-Mirra J.H., 125 AD3d at 868; Matter of Dolan v Masterton, 121 AD3d 979, 981; Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913, 915; Matter of Brian M. v Nancy M., 227 AD2d 404, 404; Matter of Gerald D. v Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650, 650). Here, the record does not support a conclusion that overnight, unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the children.

atter of Lopez v. Lopez, 127 A.D.3d 974, 974, 4 N.Y.S.3d 912 ; Matter of Blazek v. Zavelo, 127 A.D.3d 854, 854, 6 N.Y.S.3d 612 ; Matter of Anthony M.P. v. Ta–Mirra J.H., 125 A.D.3d at 868, 4 N.Y.S.3d 117 ). "Since custody and visitation determinations ‘necessarily depend[ ] to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the court's findings' " ( Matter of James M. v. Kevin M., 99 A.D.3d 911, 913, 952 N.Y.S.2d 257, quoting Matter of Elliott v. Felder, 69 A.D.3d 623, 623, 892 N.Y.S.2d 491 ). Thus, the determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the Family Court and should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blazek v. Zavelo, 127 A.D.3d at 854, 6 N.Y.S.3d 612; Matter of Anthony M.P. v. Ta–Mirra J.H., 125 A.D.3d at 868, 4 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; Matter of Dolan v. Masterton, 121 A.D.3d 979, 981, 995 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; Matter of Brian M. v. Nancy M., 227 A.D.2d 404, 404, 642 N.Y.S.2d 66 ; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650, 650, 591 N.Y.S.2d 528 ). Here, the record does not support a conclusion that overnight, unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the children.

175, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 ; see Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ), and “the best interests of a child lie in his [or her] being nurtured and guided by both of his [or her] parents” (Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193, 441 N.Y.S.2d 494, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 938, 453 N.Y.S.2d 609, 439 N.E.2d 324 ; see Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d at 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650, 591 N.Y.S.2d 528 ). “Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child's well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges” (Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva, 121 A.D.3d 794, 795, 993 N.Y.S.2d 733 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d 637, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243 ; Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775, 477 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). “Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; see Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336 ; Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 845 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; Matter of Powell v. Blumenthal, 35 A.D.3d 615, 827 N.Y.S.2d 187 ). Here, contrary to the contentions of the father and the attorney for the children, there is nothing in the record to warrant supervision of the mother's visitation with the subject children (see Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d at 915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 A.D.3d at 1024, 845 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; cf. Matter of Colter v. Baker, 104 A.D.3d 850, 961 N.Y.S.2d 491 ; Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d at 736, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336 ).

934 N.Y.S.2d 333 ; see Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 ; Matter of Aguirre v. Romano, 73 A.D.3d 912, 914, 900 N.Y.S.2d 150 ; Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d 637, 638, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243 ; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ). “The best interests of the child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents” (Matter of Zwillman v. Kull, 90 A.D.3d at 775, 934 N.Y.S.2d 333 ). “In order for the noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with the child, visitation must be frequent and regular” (id.;seeMatter of Rodriguez v. Silva, 121 A.D.3d 794, 795, 993 N.Y.S.2d 733 ; Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d at 638, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243 ; Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775, 775–776, 477 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). “ ‘Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child’ ” (Matter of Dolan v. Masterton, 121 A.D.3d 979, 980, 995 N.Y.S.2d 123, quoting Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; see Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 735–736, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336 ; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; Matter of Gainza v. Gainza, 24 A.D.3d 551, 551, 808 N.Y.S.2d 296 ). “ ‘The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the trial court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dolan v. Masterton, 121 A.D.3d at 980, 995 N.Y.S.2d 123, quoting Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d at 914–915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; see Matter of Gooler v. Gooler, 107 A.D.3d 712, 713, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208 ; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d at 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding limited unsupervised visitation between the father and the subject child.

Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the mother had a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Gooler v. Gooler, 107 A.D.3d 712, 713, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208 ; Matter of Harry v. Harry, 92 A.D.3d at 884, 938 N.Y.S.2d 808 ; Matter of Peoples v. Bideau, 85 A.D.3d 798, 924 N.Y.S.2d 843 ). “Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; see Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 735–736, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336 ; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; Matter of Gainza v. Gainza, 24 A.D.3d 551, 551, 808 N.Y.S.2d 296 ). “The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the trial court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d at 914–915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; see Matter of Gooler v. Gooler, 107 A.D.3d at 713, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208 ; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d at 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ).Here, the Family Court conditioned the father's future unsupervised visitation with the child on his submission of evidence of “medical clearance” and upon his continued submission of “medical clearance” evidence on an annual basis.

under the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Thorpe v. Homoet, 116 A.D.3d 962, 962, 983 N.Y.S.2d 629). The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character, credibility, temperament, and sincerity of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the court's findings and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Harris v. Harris, 112 A.D.3d 887, 978 N.Y.S.2d 294;Matter of Shannon J. v. Aaron P., 111 A.D.3d 829, 975 N.Y.S.2d 152;see also Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). Joint custody is appropriate between “relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in mature civilized fashion” ( Braiman v. Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589–590, 407 N.Y.S.2d 449, 378 N.E.2d 1019;see Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581;Matter of Lawrence v. Davidson, 109 A.D.3d 826, 971 N.Y.S.2d 62). Here, contrary to the father's contention, there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interest of the parties' child to award sole custody to the mother, with the father retaining significant visitation rights ( see Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d at 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581;Matter of Clarke v. Wilson, 110 A.D.3d 995, 995, 973 N.Y.S.2d 574;Matter of Wallace v. Roberts, 105 A.D.3d 1053, 1053, 963 N.Y.S.2d 395). MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, HINDS–RADIX and DUFFY, JJ., concur.