FAM § 3100

Visitation Rights & Restraining Orders: FAM § 3100

Courts grant reasonable visitation if in the child's best interest. If a protective order exists, visitation may be supervised, limited, or virtual.

Official text FAM § 3100 — California

(a) In making an order pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3080), the court shall grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent when it is shown that the visitation would be in the best interest of the child, as defined in Section 3011, and consistent with Section 3020. In the discretion of the court, reasonable visitation rights may be granted to any other person having an interest in the welfare of the child.

(b) (1) (A) If a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of this code or Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, has been issued restraining a parent, the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child requires that visitation by that parent be suspended, denied, or limited to situations in which a third person, specified by the court, is present, including virtual visitation. (B) A parent may submit to the court the name of a person who the parent deems suitable to be present during visitation. (C) The court may order supervised visitation with the person whose name was submitted, but the submission of a name does not require the court to order supervised visitation if it is not in the best interest of the child, nor does a parent’s submission of a name constitute agreement or stipulation to supervised visitation.

(2) In determining the type of visitation with the restrained party, if any, is in the best interest of the child pursuant to paragraph (1), the court shall consider the nature of the acts that led to the protective order, the period of time that has elapsed since that order, and whether the restrained party has committed further acts of abuse.

(c) (1) (A) If the court has found that circumstances warrant making an order granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis under Section 3064, the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child requires that visitation by the party whose conduct presents a risk of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California should be suspended, denied, or limited to situations in which a third person, specified by the court, is present, including virtual visitation. (B) A parent may submit to the court the name of a person who the parent deems suitable to be present during visitation, which may be accepted or rejected by the court as set forth in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).

(2) In determining the type of visitation with the party whose conduct presents a risk of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California, if any, is in the best interest of the child pursuant to paragraph (1), the court shall consider the nature of the acts that led to the finding of the risk of immediate harm or immediate risk of removal.

(d) If visitation is ordered in a case in which domestic violence is alleged and an emergency protective order, protective order, or other restraining order has been issued, the visitation order shall specify the time, day, place, and manner of the visitation, including virtual visitation, or any transfer of the child, so as to limit the child’s exposure to potential domestic conflict or abuse, to ensure the safety of all family members, and to minimize any opportunity for the use of abuse, including coercive control. If a criminal protective order has been issued pursuant to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, the visitation order shall make reference to, and, unless there is an emergency protective order that has precedence in enforcement pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 136.2 of the Penal Code or a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320, acknowledge the precedence of enforcement of, an appropriate criminal protective order.

(e) (1) If the court finds a party is staying in a place designated as a shelter for victims of domestic violence or other confidential location, the court’s order shall be designed to prevent disclosure of the location of the shelter or other confidential location and to protect all adults and children living in that location.

(2) If a court finds that a parent is residing in a confidential shelter due to domestic violence or fear of domestic violence from the other parent, the court shall order in-person visitation with the other parent only if the court finds that in-person visitation is in the best interest of the child, taking into account all of the following: (A) The other parent’s access to firearms and ammunition, including, but not limited to, whether the other parent is prohibited from having firearms and ammunition. (B) If a parent is the subject of an emergency protective order, protective order, or other restraining order, whether that parent has violated that order, and the nature of any violation. (C) Information obtained pursuant to Section 6306, the requirements of this section, and the information obtained pursuant to Section 3011. (D) The potential for disclosure of the confidential location.

(3) A court shall make its findings pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) in writing or on the record.

(f) For purposes of this section, “virtual visitation” means use of audiovisual electronic communication tools to provide contact between a parent and their children as part of a parenting plan or custody order. Virtual visitation may be supervised or unsupervised, based on the court’s determination of what is in the best interest 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 3100(a) states the general rule: in making an order under the joint custody chapter the court shall grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent where it is shown that visitation would be in the child's best interest as defined in § 3011 and consistent with § 3020, and in its discretion may grant reasonable visitation to any other person having an interest in the child's welfare. The second half is why non-parents — a step-parent, a long-term carer — appear in these orders at all.

The rest of the section is about safety. Subdivision (b)(1) provides that where a protective order under § 6218 of this code or Penal Code § 136.2 restrains a parent, the court shall consider whether the child's best interest requires visitation by that parent to be suspended, denied, or limited to situations where a third person specified by the court is present, including virtual visitation. A parent may propose a name for that role, and the court may order supervised visitation with that person — but submitting a name neither requires the court to order supervision nor amounts to agreeing to it. Paragraph (2) requires the court, in deciding the type of visitation with a restrained party, to consider the nature of the acts that led to the protective order, how long ago it was made, and whether there have been further acts of abuse. Subdivision (c) applies a parallel analysis where an ex parte custody order under § 3064 was warranted because a party's conduct presents a risk of immediate harm to the child or of removal from California.

Subdivision (d) governs the drafting of the order itself where domestic violence is alleged and a protective order has issued: the visitation order must specify the time, day, place and manner of visitation, including virtual visitation, and of any transfer of the child, so as to limit exposure to conflict or abuse, ensure the safety of all family members, and minimise the opportunity for abuse including coercive control. Those details are the substance of a safe order, and they are worth working through with a family lawyer or a domestic violence advocate.

When it applies

A parent seeking time with a child after a protective order was issued
Arranging handovers where the parents cannot safely meet
A request for supervised visitation and a dispute about who supervises
A step-parent or long-term carer asking for contact
An order made ex parte because of a risk the child would be taken out of state
A visitation order so vague that every handover becomes an argument

What this section does not say

It does not give an automatic right to visitation. Visitation is granted where it is shown to be in the child's best interest as defined in § 3011 and consistent with § 3020.
It is not limited to parents. Subdivision (a) allows the court in its discretion to grant reasonable visitation to any other person having an interest in the child's welfare.
Proposing a supervisor is not agreeing to supervision. Subdivision (b)(1)(C) says submitting a name neither requires the court to order supervised visitation nor constitutes agreement or stipulation to it.
A protective order does not automatically end contact. The court must consider whether best interest requires visitation to be suspended, denied or limited, weighing the acts, the time elapsed and any further abuse.
It is not the custody presumption. Where domestic violence is found, the presumption against awarding custody is § 3044, which operates separately from this section.

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

A protective order is in force and the restrained parent asks for unsupervised weekends with a young child.

How the wording applies

Subdivision (b) requires the court, where a protective order is in effect, to consider whether the child's best interest requires visitation to be denied, suspended or limited, weighing the acts, the time that has passed and any further abuse, and to specify the time, place and manner of any transfer. The fact that decides it is what the order and the findings behind it actually say, rather than compliance since.

How the parties settled it

Contact is supervised by an agreed professional to begin with, with a defined path to unsupervised daytime contact against stated conditions and a review date fixed in advance.

Illustrative example

An order gives reasonable visitation with no detail, and every handover becomes a negotiation that the child witnesses.

How the wording applies

The section allows the court to grant reasonable visitation, and where a protective order is in force it requires the transfer arrangements to be specified. What this turns on is specificity: an order naming the day, the time, the place and who does the handover removes the thing the parents are actually arguing about.

How the parties settled it

The parents agree a detailed schedule naming times, locations and the handover adult, filed as a stipulated order, with a single agreed channel for any communication about changes.

Related sections

FAM § 3044 5-year domestic violence custody presumption: FAM § 3044 FAM § 3011 California Family Code § 3011 - The factors a court weighs in a custody decision FAM § 3040 Parents First for Child Custody | FAM § 3040 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 § 3100 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