FAM § 3011

California Family Code § 3011 - The factors a court weighs in a custody decision

Family Code § 3011 lists the factors a California court must consider in determining the best interests of a child, including health, safety, abuse and substance abuse.

Official text FAM § 3011 — California

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:

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

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

(i) A child to whom the parent or person seeking custody is related by blood or affinity or with whom the parent or person seeking custody has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary.

(ii) The other parent.

(iii) 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. (B) As a prerequisite to considering allegations of abuse, the court may require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. As used in this paragraph, “abuse against a child” means “child abuse and neglect” as defined in Section 11165.6 of the Penal Code and abuse against any other person described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) means “abuse” as defined in Section 6203.

(3) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, including as provided in Sections 3046 and 3100.

(4) 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 first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services. As used in this paragraph, “controlled substances” has the same meaning as defined in the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code).

(5) (A) When allegations about a parent pursuant to paragraph (2) or (4) have been brought to the attention of the court in the current proceeding, and the court makes an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation to that parent, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record that the order is in the best interest of the child and protects the safety of the parties and the child. In these circumstances, the court shall ensure that any order regarding custody or visitation is specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child as set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 6323. (B) Nothing in this paragraph eliminates the requirement that the contents of the stipulation be in the best interest of the child and be specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child if the parties do stipulate in writing or on the record regarding custody or visitation.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative in determining the best interests of the child.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 3011 turns "the best interests of the child" from a slogan into a list. Subdivision (a) requires the court, in making that determination in a proceeding described in § 3021, to consider — among any other relevant factors consistent with § 3020 — the following.

The health, safety and welfare of the child. A history of abuse by a parent or other person seeking custody against a child they are related to or have had any caretaking relationship with however temporary, against the other parent, or against a parent, current spouse, cohabitant or dating partner of the person seeking custody; before considering such allegations the court may require independent corroboration such as reports from law enforcement, child protective services, courts, medical facilities or agencies serving victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. The nature and amount of contact with both parents, including as provided in §§ 3046 and 3100. And habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances, habitual or continual abuse of alcohol, or habitual or continual abuse of prescribed controlled substances by either parent, again with the option of requiring independent corroboration first.

Two things about the list are easy to miss. It is not exhaustive — the court considers these "among any other factors it finds relevant" — so it is a floor rather than a ceiling. And the corroboration provisions cut both ways: they protect a parent from bare allegations, and they mean a serious allegation supported only by one person's account may not get off the ground without documents. The presumption that applies where domestic violence is found is § 3044, and the policy framework is § 3020. How these factors apply to a particular family is exactly the judgement a family lawyer is for.

When it applies

Two parents who cannot agree on a parenting schedule
Allegations of abuse raised in a custody case
Concerns about a parent's drinking or drug use
A parent who has had little contact and now wants time
A dispute about which factors the court will actually weigh
Preparing for a custody hearing and wondering what evidence matters

What this section does not say

It is not an exhaustive list. The court considers these factors among any others it finds relevant and consistent with § 3020.
It does not rank the factors or set a formula. The section requires them to be considered, not weighted in any particular order.
It does not decide custody on an allegation alone. The court may require independent corroboration before considering allegations of abuse or of substance abuse.
It is not the domestic violence presumption. Where the court finds domestic violence was perpetrated within the previous five years, § 3044 creates a rebuttable presumption against custody to that person.
It says nothing about the child's wishes as such. A child's preference is addressed by separate provisions of the Family Code, not by this list.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

Two parents separating cannot agree how the week should be divided between two school-age children, and each says their own proposal is better for them.

How the wording applies

Section 3011 lists what is considered in determining best interest: health, safety and welfare, any history of abuse, the nature and amount of contact with both parents, and habitual substance abuse, among any other relevant factors. It turns on evidence about the children's actual routine, meaning school, care and travel time, rather than on either parent's account of the other, and the section neither ranks the factors nor supplies a formula.

How the parties settled it

The parents agree a schedule built around the school week with a review after one term, plus a written protocol for handovers and for changing arrangements at short notice.

Illustrative example

One parent raises the other's drinking as a reason to reduce their time with the children. The other says it is being used tactically.

How the wording applies

Habitual or continual abuse of alcohol is a listed factor, but the section allows the court to require independent corroboration before considering an allegation of it, and identifies the kinds of source that qualify. What this hinges on is corroboration from an independent source rather than the force with which the allegation is made.

How the parties settled it

The parent agrees to a period of testing or a treatment programme with the results shared, time is stepped up on an agreed schedule as it completes, and both agree the allegation is not repeated in front of the children.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

A.G. v. C.S., 246 Cal. App. 4th 1269 (2016)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Did the trial court err by failing to consider the mandatory factors in Family Code section 3011 when awarding custody?

What it held

The trial court did not err because the doctrine of implied findings presumes the trial court considered all necessary factors, including those in section 3011, and Mother failed to show otherwise.

In the court's words

We disagree with Mother’s contentions and affirm the order.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

Separated parents who cannot agree where the children live: what the law says in six jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

FAM § 3040 Parents First for Child Custody | FAM § 3040 FAM § 3044 5-year domestic violence custody presumption: FAM § 3044 FAM § 3100 Visitation Rights & Restraining Orders: FAM § 3100 FAM § 3087 Modify/terminate joint custody if best interest. FAM §3087

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of FAM § 3011 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages