California Family Code § 3011 – Best Interests of the Child

In California, all child custody decisions must be based on the child’s “best interests,” as set out in Family Code § 3011. Under this law, courts focus on the child’s health, safety, and welfare above all else. The judge considers a wide range of factors, including each parent’s history of abuse or substance problems, how much time the child spends with each parent, and other relevant circumstances. For example, any evidence that a parent has committed child abuse or domestic violence against the other parent or child is given heavy weight, and a parent’s routine drug or alcohol use is examined for its impact on the child. Other factors can include each parent’s ability to care for the child and the emotional bond between parent and child.

Factors Considered in Custody Decisions

Child’s health, safety, and welfare – The court’s primary concern is always whether the custody arrangement keeps the child safe and well.
History of abuse – Any past abuse by a parent (including child abuse or domestic violence) against the child, the other parent, or anyone living in the home is considered. Substantiated abuse can lead to limits on custody or supervised visitation.
Amount of contact with each parent – The court looks at the nature and frequency of the child’s time spent with each parent. California law generally favors frequent and continuing contact with both parents unless it would harm the child.
Substance abuse – If one parent has a history of illegal drug use or habitual alcohol abuse, the court must consider that under §3011(d). However, courts require independent evidence (such as drug treatment records or agency reports) to substantiate these allegations.
Parenting ability and bonds – Factors such as each parent’s stability, parenting skills, and emotional bond with the child are also relevant. The court may weigh how well each parent meets the child’s needs and the quality of each parent-child relationship.

Real-World Examples

In practice, § 3011 plays a key role in real custody cases. For example, if one parent has a documented history of child abuse or domestic violence, the court will prioritize the child’s safety and may award sole custody to the other parent. In one case, the court noted that proven abuse by a parent “has a major impact” and generally prohibits giving custody to an abuser. Another example involves allegations of drug use: § 3011(d) requires courts to consider a parent’s substance abuse, but an appellate court clarified that it does not allow the court to compel drug testing. In *Wainwright v. Superior Court* (2000), a mother asked the court to require the father to take a drug test under §3011(d), but the court of appeal held that, although the statute directs the court to consider drug abuse, it contains “no substantive or procedural safeguards” authorizing forced drug tests. The court therefore refused to order drug testing in that custody case.

Published California Court Opinions

Wainwright v. Superior Court (Sinkler) (4th Dist. 2000): This appellate decision involved §3011(d)’s drug-abuse factor. The court held that even though §3011(d) tells judges to consider illegal drug use by a parent, it does not authorize the court to force that parent to submit to drug tests. In other words, the best-interest statute requires consideration of substance abuse, but it does not give courts power to mandate testing without other legal grounds.
Celia S. v. Hugo H. (4th Dist. 2016): In this case, the court addressed the interplay of §3011 and the domestic violence custody statute (Family Code §3044). The trial court found that Hugo H. had committed domestic violence and so awarded sole legal and physical custody to Celia S., but left in place a prior 50/50 parenting schedule as “visitation.” The Court of Appeal ruled this effectively awarded joint custody to Hugo without requiring him to overcome the §3044 presumption. The opinion emphasized that if a parent overcomes the domestic-violence presumption and is given custody, the court must state its reasons on the record as §3011(e)(1) requires. The appellate court reversed the equal-time order and remanded, clarifying that a “50/50 timeshare” is a joint custody arrangement and cannot be imposed on an abusive parent without satisfying the best-interest requirements.
S.Y. v. Superior Court (4th Dist. 2018): In this certified publication, the court reviewed an interim custody order after domestic violence findings. The trial court applied the §3044 presumption against giving custody to a parent who committed abuse, but then found the father had rebutted that presumption. On appeal, the court found the evidence supported that he did (the custody order granting joint custody stood). This case illustrates §3011’s role in “best interests” analysis: the court focused on the child’s safety and the factors in §3011 and §3020 when determining that joint custody was nonetheless appropriate. The appellate decision upheld the custody order, noting that the father had rebutted the detriment presumption and that the court had adequately stated its reasons in the custody findings.

Statutory Text of Family Code § 3011

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

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

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

(1) Any child to whom he or she is related by blood or affinity or with whom he or she has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary.
(2) The other parent.
(3) 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.

As a prerequisite to considering allegations of abuse, the court may require independent corroboration (for example, reports from law enforcement, child welfare agencies, medical facilities, or domestic violence organizations). As used here, “abuse against a child” means child abuse per Penal Code §11165.6, and abuse against the other listed persons means abuse as defined in Family Code §6203.

(c) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as provided in Section 3046.

(d) 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 require independent corroboration (for example, reports from law enforcement, courts, probation departments, medical or rehabilitation facilities). “Controlled substances” has the same meaning as in the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, Div. 10).

(e)(1) Where allegations about a parent under subdivision (b) or (d) have been brought to the court’s attention in the current proceeding, and the court makes an order for sole or joint custody to that parent, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record. In such cases, any custody or visitation order must specify the time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child (as required by Section 6323(b)).

(e)(2) This subdivision (e) does not apply if the parties have stipulated (in writing or on the record) about custody or visitation.

*Nothing on this page should be considered legal advice. This is simply a summary of information found on the Internet. Use at your own risk. This information has not been evaluated by an attorney, and it may be incorrect or obsolete due to changes in the law.