IN RE: Patrick DEZIL (2014)

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated August 17, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation of the same court dated November 5, 2008, made on consent of the parties, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of O'Loughlin v. Sweetland, 98 A.D.3d 983, 951 N.Y.S.2d 160; Matter of Sparacio v. Fitzgerald, 73 A.D.3d 790, 899 N.Y.S.2d 640; Matter of Russell v. Russell, 72 A.D.3d 973, 974, 900 N.Y.S.2d 106). Moreover, “one of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination” (Matter of Vasquez v. Ortiz, 77 A.D.3d 962, 962, 909 N.Y.S.2d 155; see Cuccurullo v. Cuccurullo, 21 A.D.3d 983, 984, 801 N.Y.S.2d 360). The credibility findings of the Family Court will be accorded great weight and its determinations regarding custody will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Felty v. Felty, 108 A.D.3d 705, 707, 969 N.Y.S.2d 557; Matter of Haimovici v. Haimovici, 73 A.D.3d 1058, 899 N.Y.S.2d 898).

Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court's determination to modify the parties' custody agreement by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother's repeated and unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father constituted “conduct so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that she is unfit to act as a custodial parent” (Matter of Honeywell v. Honeywell, 39 A.D.3d 857, 858, 835 N.Y.S.2d 327; see Matter of Penny B. v. Gary S., 61 A.D.3d 589, 590, 878 N.Y.S.2d 307; Matter of Chase v. Chase, 34 A.D.3d 1077, 1080, 825 N.Y.S.2d 310).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.