# Custody and visitation (Fam. Code §§ 3010-3200)

- Description: Custody and visitation (Fam. Code §§ 3010-3200)
- Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml
- Pulled: 2026-05-13
- Sections: 16

> Verbatim text from the California Legislative Information website.
> Citation history and notes are preserved as published.

## Contents

- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3010 — Equal status of parents](#sec-fam-3010)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3011 — Best interest factors](#sec-fam-3011)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3020 — Public policy](#sec-fam-3020)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3040 — Custody preferences and presumptions](#sec-fam-3040)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3041 — Award to non-parent](#sec-fam-3041)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3042 — Child's preference](#sec-fam-3042)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3044 — Domestic-violence presumption](#sec-fam-3044)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3046 — Absence not a factor against](#sec-fam-3046)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3080 — Joint-custody presumption when stipulated](#sec-fam-3080)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3082 — Findings required if denied](#sec-fam-3082)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3083 — Joint legal custody](#sec-fam-3083)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3084 — Joint physical custody](#sec-fam-3084)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3088 — Modification with child's consent](#sec-fam-3088)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3100 — Visitation — non-custodial parent](#sec-fam-3100)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3110 — Court-appointed counsel for child](#sec-fam-3110)
- [Cal. Fam. Code § 3200 — UCCJEA — citation](#sec-fam-3200)

<a id="sec-fam-3010"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3010 — Equal status of parents

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3010.

(a) The mother of an unemancipated minor child and the father, if presumed to be the father under Section 7611, are equally entitled to the custody of the child.

(b) If one parent is dead, is unable or refuses to take custody, or has abandoned the child, the other parent is entitled to custody of the child.

*(Repealed and added by Stats. 1993, Ch. 219, Sec. 115.5. Effective January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3011"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3011 — Best interest factors

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3011.

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:

(1) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(2) (A) A history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against any of the following:

(i) A child to whom the parent or person seeking custody is related by blood or affinity or with whom the parent or person seeking custody has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary.

(ii) The other parent.

(iii) A parent, current spouse, or cohabitant, of the parent or person seeking custody, or a person with whom the parent or person seeking custody has a dating or engagement relationship.

(B) As a prerequisite to considering allegations of abuse, the court may require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. As used in this paragraph, “abuse against a child” means “child abuse and neglect” as defined in Section 11165.6 of the Penal Code and abuse against any other person described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) means “abuse” as defined in Section 6203.

(3) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, including as provided in Sections 3046 and 3100.

(4) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances, the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol, or the habitual or continual abuse of prescribed controlled substances by either parent. Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services. As used in this paragraph, “controlled substances” has the same meaning as defined in the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code).

(5) (A) When allegations about a parent pursuant to paragraph (2) or (4) have been brought to the attention of the court in the current proceeding, and the court makes an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation to that parent, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record that the order is in the best interest of the child and protects the safety of the parties and the child. In these circumstances, the court shall ensure that any order regarding custody or visitation is specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child as set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 6323.

(B) Nothing in this paragraph eliminates the requirement that the contents of the stipulation be in the best interest of the child and be specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child if the parties do stipulate in writing or on the record regarding custody or visitation.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative in determining the best interests of the child.

*(Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 493, Sec. 2. (SB 599) Effective January 1, 2024.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3020"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3020 — Public policy

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3020.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court’s primary concern in determining the best interests of children when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children. The Legislature further finds and declares that children have the right to be safe and free from abuse, and that the perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(b) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to ensure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy, except when the contact would not be in the best interests of the child, as provided in subdivisions (a) and (c) of this section and Section 3011.

(c) When the policies set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section are in conflict, a court’s order regarding physical or legal custody or visitation shall be made in a manner that ensures the health, safety, and welfare of the child and the safety of all family members.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to ensure that the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative is not considered in determining the best interests of the child.

*(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 551, Sec. 2. (SB 495) Effective January 1, 2020.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3040"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3040 — Custody preferences and presumptions

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3040.

(a) Custody should be granted in the following order of preference according to the best interest of the child as provided in Sections 3011 and 3020:

(1) To both parents jointly pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3080) or to either parent. In making an order granting custody to either parent, the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, consistent with Sections 3011 and 3020. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit to the court a plan for the implementation of the custody order.

(2) If to neither parent, to the person or persons in whose home the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment.

(3) To any other person or persons deemed by the court to be suitable and able to provide adequate and proper care and guidance for the child.

(b) The immigration status of a parent, legal guardian, or relative shall not disqualify the parent, legal guardian, or relative from receiving custody under subdivision (a).

(c) The court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative in determining the best interest of the child under subdivision (a).

(d) (1) Commencing January 1, 2024, if a court finds that the effects of a parent’s, legal guardian’s, or relative’s history of or current mental illness are a factor in determining the best interest of the child under subdivision (a), the court shall do both of the following:

(A) Provide the parent, legal guardian, or relative with a list of local resources for mental health treatment.

(B) State its reasons for the finding in writing or on the record.

(2) This subdivision does not relieve a court from ensuring that the health, safety, and welfare of the child is the court’s primary concern in determining the best interests of children when making any order regarding the physical or legal custody, or visitation, of the child.

(e) This section establishes neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody, but allows the court and the family the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child, consistent with this section.

(f) In cases where a child has more than two parents, the court shall allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, including, but not limited to, addressing the child’s need for continuity and stability by preserving established patterns of care and emotional bonds. The court may order that not all parents share legal or physical custody of the child if the court finds that it would not be in the best interest of the child as provided in Sections 3011 and 3020.

*(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 385, Sec. 3. (SB 1182) Effective January 1, 2023.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3041"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3041 — Award to non-parent

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3041.

(a) Before making an order granting custody to a person other than a parent, over the objection of a parent, the court shall make a finding that granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and that granting custody to the nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child. Allegations that parental custody would be detrimental to the child, other than a statement of that ultimate fact, shall not appear in the pleadings. The court may, in its discretion, exclude the public from the hearing on this issue.

(b) Subject to subdivision (d), a finding that parental custody would be detrimental to the child shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

(c) As used in this section, “detriment to the child” includes the harm of removal from a stable placement of a child with a person who has assumed, on a day-to-day basis, the role of the child’s parent, fulfilling both the child’s physical needs and the child’s psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. A finding of detriment does not require a finding of unfitness of the parents.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person to whom custody may be given is a person described in subdivision (c), this finding shall constitute a finding that the custody is in the best interest of the child and that parental custody would be detrimental to the child absent a showing by a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, if the child is an Indian child, when an allegation is made that parental custody would be detrimental to the child, before making an order granting custody to a person other than a parent, over the objection of a parent, the court shall apply the evidentiary standards described in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 1912 of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) and Sections 224.6 and 361.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and the placement preferences and standards set out in Section 361.31 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 1922 of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.).

*(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 115, Sec. 27. (AB 1817) Effective January 1, 2020.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3042"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3042 — Child's preference

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3042.

(a) If a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation, the court shall consider, and give due weight to, the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation.

(b) In addition to the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 765 of the Evidence Code, the court shall control the examination of a child witness so as to protect the best interest of the child.

(c) If the child is 14 years of age or older and wishes to address the court regarding custody or visitation, the child shall be permitted to do so, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interest, in which case, the court shall state its reasons for that finding on the record.

(d) This section does not prevent a child who is less than 14 years of age from addressing the court regarding custody or visitation, if the court determines that is appropriate pursuant to the child’s best interest.

(e) If the court precludes the calling of a child as a witness, the court shall provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences.

(f) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the court shall not permit a child addressing the court regarding custody or visitation to do so in the presence of the parties. The court shall provide an alternative to having the child address the court in the presence of the parties in order to obtain input directly from the child.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the court may permit the child addressing the court regarding custody or visitation to do so in the presence of the parties if the court determines that doing so is in the child’s best interest and states its reasons for that finding on the record. In determining the child’s best interest under this paragraph, the court shall consider whether addressing the court regarding custody or visitation in the presence of the parties is likely to be detrimental to the child.

(g) To assist the court in determining whether the child wishes to express a preference or to provide other input regarding custody or visitation to the court, a minor’s counsel, an evaluator, an investigator, or a child custody recommending counselor shall indicate to the judge that the child wishes to address the court, or the judge may make that inquiry in the absence of that request. A party or a party’s attorney may also indicate to the judge that the child wishes to address the court or judge.

(h) If a child informs the minor’s counsel, an evaluator, an investigator, or a child custody recommending counselor at any point that the child has changed their choice with respect to addressing the court, the minor’s counsel, evaluator, investigator, or child custody recommending counselor shall, as soon as feasible, indicate to the judge, the parties or their attorneys, and other professionals serving on the case that the child has changed their preference.

(i) This section does not require the child to express to the court a preference or to provide other input regarding custody or visitation.

(j) The Judicial Council shall, no later than January 1, 2023, develop or amend rules as necessary to implement this section.

*(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 768, Sec. 2. (SB 654) Effective January 1, 2022.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3044"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3044 — Domestic-violence presumption

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3044.

(a) Upon a finding by the court that a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence within the previous five years against the other party seeking custody of the child, or against the child or the child’s siblings, or against a person in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3011 with whom the party has a relationship, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child, pursuant to Sections 3011 and 3020. This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

(b) To overcome the presumption set forth in subdivision (a), the court shall find that paragraph (1) is satisfied and shall find that the factors in paragraph (2), on balance, support the legislative findings in Section 3020.

(1) The perpetrator of domestic violence has demonstrated that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the perpetrator is in the best interest of the child pursuant to Sections 3011 and 3020. In determining the best interest of the child, the preference for frequent and continuing contact with both parents, as set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3020, or with the noncustodial parent, as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 3040, may not be used to rebut the presumption, in whole or in part.

(2) Additional factors:

(A) The perpetrator has successfully completed a batterer’s treatment program that meets the criteria outlined in subdivision (c) of Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code.

(B) The perpetrator has successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counseling, if the court determines that counseling is appropriate.

(C) The perpetrator has successfully completed a parenting class, if the court determines the class to be appropriate.

(D) The perpetrator is on probation or parole, and has or has not complied with the terms and conditions of probation or parole.

(E) The perpetrator is restrained by a protective order or restraining order, and has or has not complied with its terms and conditions.

(F) The perpetrator of domestic violence has committed further acts of domestic violence.

(G) The court has determined, pursuant to Section 6322.5, that the perpetrator is a restrained person in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of Section 6389, Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 18120 of the Penal Code.

(c) For purposes of this section, a person has “perpetrated domestic violence” when the person is found by the court to have intentionally or recklessly caused or attempted to cause bodily injury, or sexual assault, or to have placed a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another, or to have engaged in behavior involving, but not limited to, threatening, striking, harassing, destroying personal property, or disturbing the peace of another, for which a court may issue an ex parte order pursuant to Section 6320 to protect the other party seeking custody of the child or to protect the child and the child’s siblings.

(d) (1) For purposes of this section, the requirement of a finding by the court shall be satisfied by, among other things, and not limited to, evidence that a party seeking custody has been convicted within the previous five years, after a trial or a plea of guilty or no contest, of a crime against the other party that comes within the definition of domestic violence contained in Section 6211 and of abuse contained in Section 6203, including, but not limited to, a crime described in subdivision (e) of Section 243 of, or Section 261, 273.5, 422, or 646.9 of, or former Section 262 of, the Penal Code.

(2) The requirement of a finding by the court shall also be satisfied if a court, whether that court hears or has heard the child custody proceedings or not, has made a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) based on conduct occurring within the previous five years.

(e) When a court makes a finding that a party has perpetrated domestic violence, the court may not base its findings solely on conclusions reached by a child custody evaluator or on the recommendation of the Family Court Services staff, but shall consider any relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties.

(f) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that this subdivision be interpreted consistently with the decision in Jaime G. v. H.L. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 794, which requires that the court, in determining that the presumption in subdivision (a) has been overcome, make specific findings on each of the factors in subdivision (b).

(2) If the court determines that the presumption in subdivision (a) has been overcome, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record as to why paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) is satisfied and why the factors in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), on balance, support the legislative findings in Section 3020.

(g) In an evidentiary hearing or trial in which custody orders are sought and where there has been an allegation of domestic violence, the court shall make a determination as to whether this section applies prior to issuing a custody order, unless the court finds that a continuance is necessary to determine whether this section applies, in which case the court may issue a temporary custody order for a reasonable period of time, provided the order complies with Sections 3011 and 3020.

(h) In a custody or restraining order proceeding in which a party has alleged that the other party has perpetrated domestic violence in accordance with the terms of this section, the court shall inform the parties of the existence of this section and shall give them a copy of this section prior to custody mediation in the case.

(i) This section shall become effective on January 1, 2026.

*(Repealed (in Sec. 6) and added by Stats. 2024, Ch. 544, Sec. 7. (SB 899) Effective January 1, 2025. Operative January 1, 2026, by its own provisions.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3046"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3046 — Absence not a factor against

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3046.

(a) If a party is absent or relocates from the family residence, the court shall not consider the absence or relocation as a factor in determining custody or visitation in either of the following circumstances:

(1) The absence or relocation is of short duration and the court finds that, during the period of absence or relocation, the party has demonstrated an interest in maintaining custody or visitation, the party maintains, or makes reasonable efforts to maintain, regular contact with the child, and the party’s behavior demonstrates no intent to abandon the child.

(2) The party is absent or relocates because of an act or acts of actual or threatened domestic or family violence by the other party.

(b) The court may consider attempts by one party to interfere with the other party’s regular contact with the child in determining if the party has satisfied the requirements of subdivision (a).

(c)This section does not apply to either of the following:

(1)A party against whom a protective or restraining order has been issued excluding the party from the dwelling of the other party or the child, or otherwise enjoining the party from assault or harassment against the other party or the child, including, but not limited to, orders issued under Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 10, orders preventing civil harassment or workplace violence issued pursuant to Section 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and criminal protective orders issued pursuant to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code.

(2) A party who abandons a child as provided in Section 7822.

*(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 538, Sec. 157. Effective January 1, 2007.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3080"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3080 — Joint-custody presumption when stipulated

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3080.

There is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child, subject to Section 3011, where the parents have agreed to joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child.

*(Amended by Stats. 1993, Ch. 219, Sec. 116.70. Effective January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3082"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3082 — Findings required if denied

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3082.

When a request for joint custody is granted or denied, the court, upon the request of any party, shall state in its decision the reasons for granting or denying the request. A statement that joint physical custody is, or is not, in the best interest of the child is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this section.

*(Enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. Operative January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3083"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3083 — Joint legal custody

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3083.

In making an order of joint legal custody, the court shall specify the circumstances under which the consent of both parents is required to be obtained in order to exercise legal control of the child and the consequences of the failure to obtain mutual consent. In all other circumstances, either parent acting alone may exercise legal control of the child. An order of joint legal custody shall not be construed to permit an action that is inconsistent with the physical custody order unless the action is expressly authorized by the court.

*(Enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. Operative January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3084"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3084 — Joint physical custody

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3084.

In making an order of joint physical custody, the court shall specify the rights of each parent to physical control of the child in sufficient detail to enable a parent deprived of that control to implement laws for relief of child snatching and kidnapping.

*(Enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. Operative January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3088"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3088 — Modification with child's consent

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3088.

An order for the custody of a minor child entered by a court in this state or any other state may, subject to the jurisdictional requirements in Sections 3403 and 3414, be modified at any time to an order for joint custody in accordance with this chapter.

*(Amended by Stats. 1993, Ch. 219, Sec. 116.73. Effective January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3100"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3100 — Visitation — non-custodial parent

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3100.

(a) In making an order pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3080), the court shall grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent when it is shown that the visitation would be in the best interest of the child, as defined in Section 3011, and consistent with Section 3020. In the discretion of the court, reasonable visitation rights may be granted to any other person having an interest in the welfare of the child.

(b) (1) (A) If a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of this code or Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, has been issued restraining a parent, the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child requires that visitation by that parent be suspended, denied, or limited to situations in which a third person, specified by the court, is present, including virtual visitation.

(B) A parent may submit to the court the name of a person who the parent deems suitable to be present during visitation.

(C) The court may order supervised visitation with the person whose name was submitted, but the submission of a name does not require the court to order supervised visitation if it is not in the best interest of the child, nor does a parent’s submission of a name constitute agreement or stipulation to supervised visitation.

(2) In determining the type of visitation with the restrained party, if any, is in the best interest of the child pursuant to paragraph (1), the court shall consider the nature of the acts that led to the protective order, the period of time that has elapsed since that order, and whether the restrained party has committed further acts of abuse.

(c) (1) (A) If the court has found that circumstances warrant making an order granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis under Section 3064, the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child requires that visitation by the party whose conduct presents a risk of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California should be suspended, denied, or limited to situations in which a third person, specified by the court, is present, including virtual visitation.

(B) A parent may submit to the court the name of a person who the parent deems suitable to be present during visitation, which may be accepted or rejected by the court as set forth in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).

(2) In determining the type of visitation with the party whose conduct presents a risk of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California, if any, is in the best interest of the child pursuant to paragraph (1), the court shall consider the nature of the acts that led to the finding of the risk of immediate harm or immediate risk of removal.

(d) If visitation is ordered in a case in which domestic violence is alleged and an emergency protective order, protective order, or other restraining order has been issued, the visitation order shall specify the time, day, place, and manner of the visitation, including virtual visitation, or any transfer of the child, so as to limit the child’s exposure to potential domestic conflict or abuse, to ensure the safety of all family members, and to minimize any opportunity for the use of abuse, including coercive control. If a criminal protective order has been issued pursuant to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, the visitation order shall make reference to, and, unless there is an emergency protective order that has precedence in enforcement pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 136.2 of the Penal Code or a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320, acknowledge the precedence of enforcement of, an appropriate criminal protective order.

(e) (1) If the court finds a party is staying in a place designated as a shelter for victims of domestic violence or other confidential location, the court’s order shall be designed to prevent disclosure of the location of the shelter or other confidential location and to protect all adults and children living in that location.

(2) If a court finds that a parent is residing in a confidential shelter due to domestic violence or fear of domestic violence from the other parent, the court shall order in-person visitation with the other parent only if the court finds that in-person visitation is in the best interest of the child, taking into account all of the following:

(A) The other parent’s access to firearms and ammunition, including, but not limited to, whether the other parent is prohibited from having firearms and ammunition.

(B) If a parent is the subject of an emergency protective order, protective order, or other restraining order, whether that parent has violated that order, and the nature of any violation.

(C) Information obtained pursuant to Section 6306, the requirements of this section, and the information obtained pursuant to Section 3011.

(D) The potential for disclosure of the confidential location.

(3) A court shall make its findings pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) in writing or on the record.

(f) For purposes of this section, “virtual visitation” means use of audiovisual electronic communication tools to provide contact between a parent and their children as part of a parenting plan or custody order. Virtual visitation may be supervised or unsupervised, based on the court’s determination of what is in the best interest of the child.

*(Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 317, Sec. 2. (AB 3072) Effective January 1, 2025.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3110"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3110 — Court-appointed counsel for child

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3110.

As used in this chapter, “court-appointed investigator” means a probation officer, domestic relations investigator, or court-appointed evaluator directed by the court to conduct an investigation pursuant to this chapter.

*(Repealed and added by Stats. 1993, Ch. 219, Sec. 116.81. Effective January 1, 1994.)*

<a id="sec-fam-3200"></a>
## Cal. Fam. Code § 3200 — UCCJEA — citation

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3200.

The Judicial Council shall develop standards for supervised visitation providers in accordance with the guidelines set forth in this section. For the purposes of the development of these standards, the term “provider” shall include any individual who functions as a visitation monitor, as well as supervised visitation centers, including those housed in superior court locations. Provisions shall be made within the standards to allow for the diversity of supervised visitation providers.

(a) When developing standards, the Judicial Council shall consider all of the following issues:

(1) The provider’s qualifications, experience, and education.

(2) Safety and security procedures, including ratios of children per supervisor.

(3) Any conflict of interest.

(4) Maintenance and disclosure of records, including confidentiality policies.

(5) Procedures for screening, delineation of terms and conditions, and termination of supervised visitation services.

(6) Procedures for emergency or extenuating situations.

(7) Orientation to and guidelines for cases in which there are allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, or special circumstances.

(8) The legal obligations and responsibilities of supervisors.

(b) The Judicial Council shall consult with visitation centers, mothers’ groups, fathers’ groups, judges, the State Bar of California, children’s advocacy groups, domestic violence prevention groups, Family Court Services, and other groups it regards as necessary in connection with these standards.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the safety of children, adults, and visitation supervisors be a precondition to providing visitation services. Once safety is assured, the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration at all stages and particularly in deciding the manner in which supervision is provided.

(d) Superior court locations may serve as supervised visitation and exchange locations. Superior courts may designate employees and contractors to provide supervised visitation and exchange services or assistance with those services.

*(Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 493, Sec. 4. (SB 599) Effective January 1, 2024.)*