Skip to content

California Family Code §§ 3011, 3020, 3040 — Best Interests + Custody Framework

TL;DR. California Family Code §§ 3011 + 3020 + 3040 form the most influential US state-level best-interests-of-the-child + custody-determination framework. Widely cited as persuasive authority by other US states. Section 3011 lists the factors courts must consider; 3020 sets public policy; 3040 establishes order-of-preference. Together with In re Marriage of LaMusga [2004] (California Supreme Court on relocation), this is the foundational California statutory + appellate stack for PA-context custody cases.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-17 · License: CC BY 4.0

Statutory framework

Family Code § 3011 — Best Interests Factors

The court SHALL consider:

(a) The health, safety, and welfare of the child (b) Any history of abuse by one parent against (1) any child, (2) the other parent, or (3) a current or former partner (c) The nature and amount of contact with both parents (d) Habitual or continual use of controlled substances or alcohol (e) Allegations of abuse — when alleged, the court has affirmative investigation duty (f) The child's preference (with weight appropriate to maturity)

Family Code § 3020 — Public Policy

California's stated policy is: - (a) The best interest of the child requires both parents in continued contact - (b) Children benefit from frequent and continuing contact with both parents - (c) Where these conflict, the child's safety + welfare take precedence

Family Code § 3040 — Order of Preference

When awarding custody, the court's order of preference: - (a)(1) Both parents jointly OR to either parent (consider which is more likely to allow frequent + continuing contact with the other) - (a)(2) The person/persons in whose home the child has been living - (a)(3) Any other person deemed by the court to be suitable

The "more likely to allow frequent and continuing contact" criterion in § 3040(a)(1) is the most directly PA-relevant provision in California law. A documented pattern of alienating behaviors — obstructing contact, badmouthing, coaching — fails this test and supports primary custody to the targeted parent.

How this applies in PA contexts

California courts apply §§ 3011 + 3020 + 3040 to PA cases through:

  1. § 3011(c) — quantity + quality of contact each parent provides becomes a documented metric
  2. § 3020(b) — public-policy preference for both-parent contact creates pro-targeted-parent presumption when one side is documented to obstruct
  3. § 3040(a)(1) — "more likely to allow frequent + continuing contact" criterion directly disfavors the alienating parent
  4. § 3011(e) — coached child statements receive scrutiny under the affirmative investigation duty

Combined: California has unusually strong statutory hooks for PA-context arguments — much stronger than many other US states' equivalents.

In re Marriage of LaMusga [2004] — Relocation refinement

In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal.4th 1072 (2004)

California Supreme Court ruling on relocation cases:

  • Held that the custodial parent's "presumptive" right to relocate under Burgess (1996) is qualified
  • Courts must consider whether relocation is motivated by intent to frustrate the other parent's contact
  • The relocating parent's history of facilitating or obstructing contact is directly relevant
  • Where alienation pattern is documented, the presumptive right yields

LaMusga is the California-Supreme-Court anchor for anti-alienation-motivated-relocation arguments — parallel to U v U [2002] HCA 36 (Australia), see case-law/australia/u-v-u-2002-hca-36.md.

Influence on other US states

California's framework is the most-cited state framework when:

  • Drafting model legislation in other US states
  • Comparative analysis in academic literature
  • Appellate persuasive-authority citations in NY, FL, TX, IL, MA, WA, OR family-court decisions
  • US Supreme Court considerations of family-law constitutional questions

Many US states' best-interests statutes either copy from or substantially mirror California's framework.

Practical use

Sample California motion language:

Per California Family Code § 3040(a)(1), the Court is respectfully asked to evaluate which parent is "more likely to allow frequent and continuing contact" with the other. The documented pattern of [N] obstructed exchanges over [N] months, the recorded badmouthing per the attached evidence pack, and the [school/medical/social] gatekeeping documented in Respondent's conduct demonstrably fails this criterion. Per Family Code § 3020(b), California public policy favors both-parent contact; per § 3011(b), the Court must consider Respondent's documented pattern as relevant to the best-interests analysis. The Applicant respectfully submits these as grounds for [requested custody modification].

For relocation cases, add:

Per In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal.4th 1072 (2004), Respondent's proposed relocation must be evaluated against their documented history of facilitating or obstructing contact. The pattern here demonstrates the relocation is motivated by intent to frustrate, not by good-faith mobility.

Citing posts

# Post
17 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/pa-vs-estrangement-courts
19 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/custody-evaluators-prepare
22 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/choosing-pa-lawyer
37 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/when-to-go-to-trial-vs-settle
66 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/usa-parent-child-in-europe-playbook

Primary source

  • California Legislative Information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FAM
  • In re Marriage of LaMusga: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4847478869036729797

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice. California family-law matters require qualified California attorney.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com