Skip to content

California Family Code §§ 3011, 3020, 3040 — Verbatim text

TL;DR. California's custody-determination architecture is structured across three core statutes: § 3011 lists the best-interests factors the court must consider (health/safety/welfare; history of abuse; nature/amount of contact with both parents; substance-abuse allegations; safety-protection findings for sole/joint custody; sex/gender-identity exclusion); § 3020 sets the public-policy framework (safety paramount; both-parents frequent-and-continuing-contact policy; resolution rule when safety conflicts with contact); § 3040 establishes the order of preference for custody (joint or either parent first → person providing wholesome environment → other suitable person), and explicitly includes the friendly-parent factor ("which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent"). The 2024 amendments to § 3011 (SB 599) added the requirement that when allegations of abuse or substance abuse are raised and the court still orders sole/joint custody to that parent, the court must state reasons in writing or on the record that the order is in the best interests and protects safety.

Source: California Legislative Information canonical — California state statutes are public domain. · Fetched: 2026-06-14 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Full statutory text (verbatim)

Family Code § 3011 — Best-interests factors

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 © 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.)

Family Code § 3020 — Public policy

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 © of this section and Section 3011.

© 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.)

Family Code § 3040 — Custody order of preference

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).

© 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.

Why these statutes matter for parental-alienation analysis

California's three-statute architecture (§§ 3011 + 3020 + 3040) is the most influential US state-level family-court framework — widely cited by other US states and the source of language adopted in many state codes. PA-pattern conduct intersects multiple provisions:

§ 3011 — Best-interests factors

  • (a)(3) "Nature and amount of contact with both parents" — the factor most directly engaging PA-context analysis. California courts assess whether each parent supports or undermines the child's relationship with the other parent, with reference also to §§ 3046 (prior domestic violence) and 3100 (visitation conditions). Sustained alienating conduct → diminished contact pattern that the court must weigh.

  • (a)(2) "History of abuse" — the safety hook. Critically, (a)(2)(B) requires the court MAY require independent corroboration before considering abuse allegations. PA-aware practice treats this as the operational tension point: false abuse allegations strategically deployed during custody disputes must be subjected to corroboration scrutiny, while genuine abuse must not be obscured by PA framing.

  • (a)(5)(A) — written-reasons requirement on safety-implicated custody orders (post-SB 599, in force 1 Jan 2024) — when abuse or substance-abuse allegations are raised and the court still orders sole/joint custody or unsupervised visitation to that parent, the court must state reasons in writing or on the record that the order is in the best interest and protects safety. This is the operational accountability mechanism that ensures courts engage substantively with safety concerns rather than dismissing them sub silentio.

§ 3020 — Public policy

  • (a) Health/safety/welfare paramount + (b) frequent-and-continuing-contact with both parents + © safety wins when they conflict is the canonical California ordering. § 3020(b) is the public-policy statement of the both-parents-contact baseline — which PA-pattern conduct directly threatens by interfering with the child's contact with the target parent.

  • © Conflict-resolution rule — when the policies are in conflict, safety wins. This means a PA-context custody order that materially weakens the target parent's contact in service of "safety" claims must withstand scrutiny that the claimed safety risk is real, not strategically invoked.

§ 3040 — Order of preference (friendly-parent factor)

  • (a)(1) Joint-custody preference + friendly-parent factor: "the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent." This is California's canonical friendly-parent factor — a direct PA-relevant statutory anchor. A parent with a documented pattern of obstructing the other parent's contact is statutorily disadvantaged under this factor when the court allocates custody.

  • (e) No-presumption rule — § 3040(e) explicitly disclaims any presumption for or against joint or sole custody. This gives California courts substantial discretion to tailor custody arrangements to specific facts, including PA-context patterns, without being constrained by a doctrinal default.

Influential California appellate authorities

  • In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 — California Supreme Court on relocation (a substantial body of move-away PA cases turn on the LaMusga framework).
  • In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 — California Supreme Court foundational relocation decision (modified by LaMusga).
  • Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249 — California Supreme Court on stipulated custody orders + modification standards.

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

Primary source

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):