California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 3104 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)On petition to the court by a grandparent of a minor child, the court may grant reasonable visitation rights to the grandparent if the court does both of the following:

(1)Finds that there is a preexisting relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild that has engendered a bond such that visitation is in the best interest of the child.

(2)Balances the interest of the child in having visitation with the grandparent against the right of the parents to exercise their parental authority.

(b)A petition for visitation under this section shall not be filed while the natural or adoptive parents are married, unless one or more of the following circumstances exist:

(1)The parents are currently living separately and apart on a permanent or indefinite basis.

(2)One of the parents has been absent for more than one month without the other spouse knowing the whereabouts of the absent spouse.

(3)One of the parents joins in the petition with the grandparents.

(4)The child is not residing with either parent.

(5)The child has been adopted by a stepparent.

(6)One of the parents is incarcerated or involuntarily institutionalized.

At any time that a change of circumstances occurs such that none of these circumstances exist, the parent or parents may move the court to terminate grandparental visitation and the court shall grant the termination.

(c)The petitioner shall give notice of the petition to each of the parents of the child, any stepparent, and any person who has physical custody of the child, by personal service pursuant to Section 415.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(d)If a protective order as defined in Section 6218 has been directed to the grandparent during the pendency of the proceeding, the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child requires that any visitation by that grandparent should be denied.

(e)There is a rebuttable presumption that the visitation of a grandparent is not in the best interest of a minor child if the natural or adoptive parents agree that the grandparent should not be granted visitation rights.

(f)There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the visitation of a grandparent is not in the best interest of a minor child if the parent who has been awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child in another proceeding, or the parent with whom the child resides if there is currently no operative custody order objects to visitation by the grandparent.

(g)Visitation rights may not be ordered under this section if that would conflict with a right of custody or visitation of a birth parent who is not a party to the proceeding.

(h)Visitation ordered pursuant to this section shall not create a basis for or against a change of residence of the child, but shall be one of the factors for the court to consider in ordering a change of residence.

(i)When a court orders grandparental visitation pursuant to this section, the court in its discretion may, based upon the relevant circumstances of the case:

(1)Allocate the percentage of grandparental visitation between the parents for purposes of the calculation of child support pursuant to the statewide uniform guideline (Article 2 (commencing with Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 9).

(2)Notwithstanding Sections 3930 and 3951, order a parent or grandparent to pay to the other, an amount for the support of the child or grandchild. For purposes of this paragraph, “support” means costs related to visitation such as any of the following:

(A)Transportation.

(B)Provision of basic expenses for the child or grandchild, such as medical expenses, day care costs, and other necessities.

(j)As used in this section, “birth parent” means “birth parent” as defined in Section 8512.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). · cites it 6× “§ 9-13-103 (1998); Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 3104 (West 1994); Colo.”

Blixt v. Blixt, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2× “, Cal. Fam. Code § 3104 (a)(1) (Deering 1994); Iowa Code Ann.”

Punsly v. Ho, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “) Around the time that this court was considering the issues presented in its prior opinion in this case, we also had before us another appeal by a mother challenging a visitation order in favor of grandparents, as unconstitutional as applied under a companion statute, Family…”

Peters v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 2× “3d 339, 344-45 (2002) (trial court constitutionally erred by shifting grandparent's burden to fit parent); Cal. Fam.Code § 3104; Colo.Rev.Stat. § 19-1-117; Conn.”

In Re Marriage of Harris, 96 P.3d 141 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we remand the case to permit the superior court to reconsider its order permitting grandparent visitation in light of the statutory presumption that grandparent visitation is not in the best interest of the child.”

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. C.E. (In re C.M.), 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “3d 744 [ Family Code section 3104 does not govern visitation in a dependency context]; In re Alexandria M.”

Santi v. Santi, 633 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2001). “, Cal. Fam.Code § 3104(e) (West 1994) (rebuttable presumption that grandparent visitation not in child’s best interest if parents agree otherwise); Me.”

Finberg v. Manset, 223 Cal. App. 4th 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “(Fam. Code, § 3104.) 1 J. was adopted by his stepfather.”

L.B.S. v. L.M.S., 826 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). “” See Cal. Fam.Code § 3104(f). The California Court of Appeal construed this provision in a manner that saved the statute from a finding of facial unconstitutionality under California’s Constitution.”

E.H.G. v. E.R.G., 73 So. 3d 634 (Ala. 2011). “, Cal. Fam.Code Ann. § 3104(e) (West 1994) (rebuttable presumption that grandparent visitation is not in child’s best'interest if parents agree that visitation rights should not be granted); Me.”

People v. DeJongh, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “) The California Supreme Court held that Family Code section 3104 controlled. “Because the mother had sole custody of the child and objected to grandparent visitation, Family Code section 3104, subdivision (f), imposed a rebuttable presumption *1131 affecting the burden of proof…”

W.H. v. K.M. ca4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 6× “) Family Code section 3104 permits grandparents to petition for visitation if the grandchild’s parents are not married, are living separately, or if certain other conditions are met.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Cal. Family Code § 3104(a) — 1 case

S.B. v. Heather B. CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).

— Cal. Family Code § 3104(e) — 5 cases

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). “§ 9-13-103 (1998); Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 3104 (West 1994); Colo.”

Ex Parte Erg, 73 So. 3d 634 (Ala. 2011).

Stuard v. Stuard (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

— Cal. Family Code § 3104(f) — 2 cases

Lbs v. Lms, 826 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).

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.