This California family law section outlines the order in which custody should be granted, based on the child's best interests. First preference is for joint custody or custody to either parent, prioritizing the parent's willingness to allow access to the other parent. If neither parent is suitable, custody may go to someone the child already lives with, or another suitable person. Factors like immigration status or gender identity cannot disqualify a person from custody consideration. Starting in 2024, if mental illness affects custody decisions, the court must provide mental health resources and document their reasons. The focus is always on the child's health, safety, and welfare without inherent biases towards any custody arrangement. If a child has more than two parents, the court will decide custody based on stability and emotional needs.

This law explains the conditions under which a court can give custody of a child to someone other than the parents, even if the parents don't agree. The court has to decide that staying with the parent would harm the child and being with the non-parent is in the child's best interest. The court needs strong evidence to support this decision. "Detriment to the child" can mean removing the child from a stable, loving home with someone who has been acting as their parent for a long time. Importantly, this doesn't mean the biological parents are unfit. When the child is Native American, special legal standards apply to protect the child's cultural heritage and family ties.

If you're in a child custody or visitation case and there's proof that you frequently use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol, the court can order you to get tested. This decision is based on evidence like a recent drug conviction. The testing is done in the least intrusive way following strict procedures. Even if you test positive, it won't automatically give you a bad custody decision. These test results are kept confidential and only certain people can see them. Any breach of this confidentiality can result in a fine up to $2,500. The court can also tell one or both parties to pay for the testing costs.

This law discusses how and when a child can share their opinions on who they want to live with or visit after their parents separate. If a child is mature enough to make an intelligent choice, the court will listen to what they want and consider it when deciding custody or visitation. Children 14 and older can speak to the court unless it's deemed bad for their well-being, in which case the court must explain why. Younger children can also speak if it's appropriate for their situation. The court will find other ways to understand a child's wishes if they can't testify directly, and usually, children won't address the court in front of their parents unless it's best for the child. Professionals involved must inform the court if a child changes their mind about talking or if they want to speak. However, children aren't forced to share their preferences. Lastly, rules must be in place by 2023 to support this process.

When a court decides who should get custody of a child, they have to seriously consider who the parent has chosen as the child's guardian, as stated in the Probate Code.

If a court finds someone seeking child custody has committed domestic violence in the last five years, there's an assumption that giving them custody isn't good for the child's well-being. This can be challenged with enough evidence. To do so, the person must prove custody is in the child’s best interest and meet several conditions, like completing treatment programs and following legal orders.

Domestic violence includes causing harm, making threats, or disturbing someone's peace. The court won't rely on reports from custody evaluators alone. It will evaluate evidence presented. The court needs to decide if these rules apply before issuing any custody orders, and must inform parties about this law during custody cases.

This law remains active until January 1, 2026. After that, it will be repealed.

This law indicates that if someone seeking custody of a child has committed domestic violence in the last five years, there's an assumption that giving them custody is not best for the child. However, this presumption can be challenged if the person can show that having custody is indeed in the child’s best interest. To do this, they must meet several conditions, like completing treatment programs or proving compliance with any legal orders. The law states the specific actions that count as domestic violence and outlines the evidence needed for court decisions. Before issuing custody orders, courts must decide if these rules apply, and they must tell the parties about this law if domestic violence is alleged.

This law section says that if someone temporarily leaves or moves from the family home, the court shouldn't automatically view that negatively when deciding on custody or visitation. This applies if the move is short and the person still shows interest in being involved with the child, or if they leave due to domestic violence. However, if one parent tries to keep the other from seeing the child, the court may consider that. This rule doesn't protect people who have restraining orders against them or those who abandon their children.

This law is about making sure that a parent's military service doesn't unfairly disrupt their custody or visitation rights. If a parent has to serve in the military, causing them to miss visits or relocate, the custody arrangement shouldn't change just because of that. Any adjustments made due to military orders are meant to be temporary and reviewed once the parent returns. These temporary orders prioritize the child's best interest and aim to maintain parent-child connections. Courts should handle these cases quickly to minimize disruption. The law also allows for electronic participation in hearings and considers the absence of a child due to deployment as temporary for custody purposes.

This law is about making sure that any child custody or visitation order in California includes specific details. It must explain why the court has the authority to make the decision, how both parents were informed and given a chance to be heard, the specifics of custody and visitation rights, a warning about penalties for breaking the order, and the child's main country of residence. If there's any risk that a parent might abduct the child, the court must decide on measures to prevent it, taking into account factors like past abductions, family ties in other places, and planning activities like quitting jobs or selling homes. Possible preventative measures include supervised visits, travel restrictions, and surrendering passports. The court can also involve law enforcement or international agreements if necessary. The Judicial Council must update forms to reflect these rules, and the location of a Child Abduction Unit is provided if there's a serious risk of abduction.

This section aims to officially incorporate a previous California Supreme Court decision into law. It ensures that when courts make decisions about child custody and visitation, they consider the rights and circumstances of a disabled parent, as established in the case In re Marriage of Carney.