(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 (c) of this section and Section 3011.
(c)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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
25 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
Lester v. Lennane, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8801 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
Lester v. Lennane, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8801 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “(Family Code sections 3020, 3040.) The evidence in this case supports a finding that Father is the parent more willing to accommodate the other parent’s rights.”
In Re Marriage of Burgess, 913 P.2d 473 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “(Fam. Code, § 3020.) This policy must be considered in the "best interest" balance.”
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002).
“Id. Like Texas, the California Family Code pronounced a public policy in favor of “frequent and [continuing] contact” between the parents and children.”
In Re Marriage of Comer, 927 P.2d 265 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 3× “” (Fam. Code, § 3020.) The court noted that a state plan for AFDC must meet minimum mandatory requirements.”
In Re Marriage of LaMusga, 88 P.3d 81 (Cal. 2004).
“) We observed that the statutory policy promoting "frequent and continuing contact with both parents" (Fam.Code, § 3020) does not limit "the trial court's broad discretion to determine, in light of all the circumstances, what custody arrangement serves the `best interest' of…”
S.H. v. M.M. (in Re C.e.), 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
· cites it 2× “) While Family Code section 3040 sets forth an order of preference in awarding custody of a child, the Legislature makes it clear its goal is to allow the court the "widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child.”
Guardianship of Ann S., 202 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2009).
“” Under Family Code section 3040, subdivision (a), parents are first in the order of preference for a grant of custody, but “the court and the family” are allowed “the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child.”
In Re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal. App. 4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “" Family Code section 3020 states it is the public policy of California to assure minor children "frequent and continuing contact" with both parents after the parents' separation or dissolution of marriage, and to encourage parents to "share the rights and responsibilities of…”
Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App. 2002).
“At no point did the California court mention the best interests of the children, see Cal. Fam.Code § 3020 (West Supp.2002), or require an investigation to assure their safety in Saavedra’s care.”
Jennifer L. v. Marjorie L., 228 Cal. App. 4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “A court may appoint a guardian if it is in the child’s best interest as determined under family law custody statutes, particularly Family Code section 3020 and 3040 et seq.”
Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. D.H. (In re D.H.), 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 305 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
“) Family Code section 3020 declares that the health, safety, and welfare of the child is the court's primary concern, and that it is the public policy of the state to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after separation or dissolution of…”
In Re Marriage of Jackson, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
“”]; Fam. Code, § 3020, subd. (b) [public policy of California is “to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.