California lawChild CustodyRelocationDomestic ViolenceMarriageVisitation

Child Custody and Parenting Time in California

September 26, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

California's rule on child custody and parenting time turns on a feature the national template does not capture: California uses Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time implements physical custody. Joint legal custody is common.. Fam. Code § 3011 factors include the child’s health, safety, and welfare; any history of abuse; the nature of contact with both parents; and habitual illegal use of controlled substances or alcohol. Section 3020 favors frequent and continuing contact with both parents; domestic violence creates presumptions under § 3044 against custody for the perpetrator. The controlling authority is Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3011, 3020, 3040, 3087. Relocation: A parent seeking to move away with the child must show the relocation is in the child’s best interests; contested move-aways often require evidentiary hearings (Burgess / LaMusga line). Modification: A significant change of circumstances is generally required to modify a final custody judgment; parenting-time adjustments may be judged under best interests alone when legal custody is unchanged.

Key takeaways

Best-interests standard: Fam.
Labels used in California: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time implements physical custody. Joint legal custody is common..
Parenting-time posture: Section 3020 favors frequent and continuing contact with both parents; domestic violence creates presumptions under § 3044 against custody for the perpetrator.
Relocation: A parent seeking to move away with the child must show the relocation is in the child’s best interests; contested move-aways often require evidentiary hearings (Burgess / LaMusga line).
Modification: A significant change of circumstances is generally required to modify a final custody judgment; parenting-time adjustments may be judged under best interests alone when legal custody is unchanged.
Primary authority: Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3011, 3020, 3040, 3087.

Worked example under California law

The illustration below uses only rules already stated for California. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.

Two parents in California disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.

Use the labels California actually uses: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time implements physical custody. Joint legal custody is common..
Apply the best-interests factors: Fam. Code § 3011 factors include the child’s health, safety, and welfare; any history of abuse; the nature of contact with both parents; and habitual illegal use of controlled substances or alcohol.
Check any parenting presumption: Section 3020 favors frequent and continuing contact with both parents; domestic violence creates presumptions under § 3044 against custody for the perpetrator.
If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to move away with the child must show the relocation is in the child’s best interests; contested move-aways often require evidentiary hearings (Burgess / LaMusga line). Later changes follow: A significant change of circumstances is generally required to modify a final custody judgment; parenting-time adjustments may be judged under best interests alone when legal custody is unchanged.

Custody mediation (Child Custody Recommending Counseling in many counties) is mandatory before contested hearings. Temporary emergency orders are available for safety risks. Final judgments specify legal/physical custody and a detailed parenting plan.

Best-interests factors in California

Fam. Code § 3011 factors include the child’s health, safety, and welfare; any history of abuse; the nature of contact with both parents; and habitual illegal use of controlled substances or alcohol.

Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time

Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time implements physical custody. Joint legal custody is common.

Section 3020 favors frequent and continuing contact with both parents; domestic violence creates presumptions under § 3044 against custody for the perpetrator.

Relocation with a child

A parent seeking to move away with the child must show the relocation is in the child’s best interests; contested move-aways often require evidentiary hearings (Burgess / LaMusga line).

Modifying a California custody order

A significant change of circumstances is generally required to modify a final custody judgment; parenting-time adjustments may be judged under best interests alone when legal custody is unchanged.

How custody cases typically move in California

Case law: custody and parenting time in California

In Re the Marriage of WENDY A. and PAUL D. BURGESS. WENDY A. BURGES — Baxter, J., concurring in part and dissenting

In Re the Marriage of WENDY A. and PAUL D. BURGESS. WENDY A. BURGES — Baxter, J., concurring in part and dissenting, 13 Cal. 4th 25 (1996)

…much of its reasoning. I agree that in an initial judicial custody determination—the situation presented by this case—the court simply considers all the relevant factors, including the parents’ respective relationships with the child and any potential relocation of either parent, to determine what formal custody and visitation arrangements are in the “best interest of the chil…

California opinions such as In Re the Marriage of WENDY A. and PAUL D. BURGESS. WENDY A. BURGES — Baxter, J., concurring in part and dissenting are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "much of its reasoning. I agree that in an initial judicial custody determination—the situation presented by this case—the court simply considers all the relevant factors, including the parents’ respective relationships with the child and any potential relocation of either parent," That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

ALEX MONTENEGRO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBORAH DIAZ, Defendant and Appellant

ALEX MONTENEGRO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBORAH DIAZ, Defendant and Appellant, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 (2001)

…miliar, Deborah Diaz and Alex Montenegro could not agree on custody and visitation over their son, Gregory. During the child custody proceedings, Diaz and Montenegro entered into various stipulations, confirmed by the trial court, “resolving” their disputes over Gregory. In the last such stipulation, Diaz and Montenegro agreed to joint legal custody of Gregory, with Diaz having…

On child custody, ALEX MONTENEGRO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBORAH DIAZ, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Deborah Diaz and Alex Montenegro could not agree on custody and visitation over their son, Gregory. During the child custody proceedings, Diaz and Montenegro entered into various stipulations, confirmed by the trial court, “resolving” their disputes over Gregory." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

ANA MARIE BURCHARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM GARAY, Defendant and Respondent

ANA MARIE BURCHARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM GARAY, Defendant and Respondent, 42 Cal. 3d 531 (1986)

Opinion BROUSSARD, J. This case concerns the custody of William Garay, Jr., age two and one-half at the date of trial. Ana Burchard, his mother, appeals from an order of the superior court awarding custody to the father, William Garay. As a result of a brief liaison between Ana and William, Ana became pregnant. Early in her term she told William that she was preg…

On child custody, ANA MARIE BURCHARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM GARAY, Defendant and Respondent speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Opinion BROUSSARD, J. This case concerns the custody of William Garay, Jr., age two and one-half at the date of trial. Ana Burchard, his mother, appeals from an order of the superior court awarding custody to the father, William Garay." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

F.T., and v. L.J., and

F.T., and v. L.J., and, 194 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2011)

…if not conclusive, presumption that Mother should not have custody of Child. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2006, Child was bom to Mother and Father, who had dated for five or six months. Child resided with Mother from his birth through February 17, 2007. On February 17, Mother burned Child’s arm with a hot curling iron, apparently to teach him a lesson by showin…

California opinions such as F.T., and v. L.J., and are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "Mother should not have custody of Child. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2006, Child was bom to Mother and Father, who had dated for five or six months. Child resided with Mother from his birth through February 17, 2007." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

In Re Marriage of Schiffman

In Re Marriage of Schiffman, 620 P.2d 579 (1980)

…social developments. (1a) Consequently we rule that, as in custody disputes, quarrels concerning a child's surname should be decided according to the best interests of the child. Ms. Herdman and Mr. Schiffman were married on January 15, 1977 and separated six months later. She then was four months pregnant. On August 4, 1977, she petitioned for dissolution and noted that there…

In Re Marriage of Schiffman is worth reading on California child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Consequently we rule that, as in custody disputes, quarrels concerning a child's surname should be decided according to the best interests of the child. Ms. Herdman and Mr. Schiffman were married on January 15, 1977 and separated six months later. She then was four months pregnant." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

KEITH R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; H.R., Real Party in Interest

KEITH R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; H.R., Real Party in Interest, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2009)

…an the “best interest” rule to a move-away order in a child custody case when there *1051 has been no final judicial custody determination within the meaning of Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 258 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 27 P.3d 289] (Montenegro). A domestic violence order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) 1 is not a permanent…

California opinions such as KEITH R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; H.R., Real Party in Interest are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 258 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 27 P.3d 289] (Montenegro). A domestic violence order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

MARK T., and v. JAMIE Z., and

MARK T., and v. JAMIE Z., and, 194 Cal. App. 4th 1115 (2011)

…order of the trial court establishing a legal and physical custody sharing arrangement pertaining to L., the minor child of Jamie and Mark T. At some point after L. was bom, Mark filed a petition to establish his paternity, and the parties agreed to a temporary joint custody arrangement pursuant to which Jamie had primary physical custody of L. The court entered an order estab…

California opinions such as MARK T., and v. JAMIE Z., and are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "L., the minor child of Jamie and Mark T. At some point after L. was bom, Mark filed a petition to establish his paternity, and the parties agreed to a temporary joint custody arrangement pursuant to which Jamie had primary physical custody of L." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Frequently asked questions

What does California call “custody”?