In California, the determination of the best interests of the child in custody cases is governed by several statutes and case law principles. The primary legal standard is the “best interest of the child” standard, which allows the court wide discretion to choose a parenting plan that serves the child’s best interests In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25 (1996))
Factors to Determine, “Best Interest of the Child”.
Key factors that the court must consider in determining the best interests of the child include: “(a) The health, safety, and welfare of the child. (b) Any history of abuse by one parent against the child or against the other parent ….(c) The nature and amount of contact with both parents.” And the case law supports the Courts using there three determining factors.
In addition, California Family Code Section 3011 sets out exactly what factors must be determined for the best interest of the child:
(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,
(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.
According to California Superior Court, Judicial Branch suggestions in deciding what is best for a child, the judge considers:
- The age and health of the child
- The emotional ties between the parents and the child
- The child’s ties to their school, home, and community
- The ability of each parent to care for the child
- Any history of family violence
- Any regular and ongoing substance abuse by either parent
Special Circumstances:
In cases involving allegations of abuse or substance abuse, the court may require independent corroboration before considering these allegations. If the court makes an order for custody or visitation to a parent against whom such allegations have been made, it must state its reasons in writing or on the record
The court also has the discretion to require parents to submit a plan for the implementation of the custody order.
In cases where a child has more than two parents, the court must allocate custody and visitation based on the best interests of the child, considering the child’s need for continuity and stability
Case law further emphasizes that the court’s primary concern is the child’s welfare and that the court must consider all circumstances bearing on the child’s best interests.
The superior court’s function in determining custody is not to reward or punish the parents for their past conduct, but to determine what is in the best interests of the child.
Conclusion:
In summary, the best interests of the child standard in California custody cases involves a comprehensive evaluation of various factors related to the child’s well-being, the parents’ conduct, and the child’s relationship with each parent, with the overarching goal of ensuring the child’s health, safety, and welfare. In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal.4th 1072 (2004))
