California

Section 3011(a) has five numbered provisions, four substantive factors; § 3040.5 separately requires consideration of relevant, admissible human-trafficking evidence.

Authority

Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3011, 3040.5

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

5 (4 substantive) in § 3011(a); § 3040.5 separately requires consideration of relevant, admissible evidence that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or the other parent.

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

Domestic-violence presumption under Cal. Fam. Code § 3044 applies after a qualifying court finding that a parent perpetrated domestic violence within the preceding five years and is rebuttable. Rebuttal is child-specific; a finding in a separate proceeding involving a different child does not automatically bind another parent (In re Marriage of Jessica and Sammer Z. (2026), pp. 26–32).

Child's voice / age rule

No minimum age for considering a sufficiently mature child’s wishes. At 14 or older, a child who wishes to address the court generally must be allowed to do so, subject to a best-interest finding stated on the record; younger children may also be heard (§ 3042(a), (c)–(d)).

Compare best interests nationally

(a) "Irreconcilable differences, which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage"; (b) "Permanent legal incapacity to make decisions"

Authority

Cal. Fam. Code § 2310

Grounds without a misconduct showing

(a) "Irreconcilable differences, which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage"; (b) "Permanent legal incapacity to make decisions"

Other grounds and proof conditions

No additional grounds identified.

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

Six months after service of the summons and petition or the respondent’s appearance, whichever occurs first, before the dissolution becomes final. Section 2339 does not require a six-month delay for a legal-separation judgment.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, § 2310 covers dissolution "or legal separation"

Compare divorce grounds nationally

The favorable starting point concerns a qualifying custodial parent. Joint physical custody requires a different analysis. Domestic-violence rules can also change the analysis.

Authority

Cal. Fam. Code 7501, 3024 (Burgess, LaMusga)

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

presumption for the move

Notice classification

court-ordered only

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

not addressed (no objection procedure in statute or rule)

What the court weighs

At an initial custody determination the test is best interests, and the relocating parent bears no burden to show the move is necessary (Burgess). After a final judicial custody order, a parent with sole or primary physical custody has a presumptive right to relocate. The objecting parent must show the move would cause detriment to the child, which triggers a best-interests re-evaluation using the LaMusga factors (LaMusga, Brown & Yana). Where parents share joint physical custody under an existing order and in fact, there is no presumption. The court decides primary custody de novo under the best-interest standard (Burgess fn. 12, Fam. Code 3087). Fam. Code 3040 says there is no presumption for or against joint or sole custody. In determining whether the § 3044 presumption is rebutted, the court may not rely on the statutory preference for frequent and continuing contact with both parents or with the noncustodial parent (§ 3044(b)(1)); Jessica held that the court’s reliance on that preference through its LaMusga analysis was error.

Who carries the burden

The objecting (noncustodial) parent carries the initial burden of showing detriment to the child before the court revisits custody. The relocating custodial parent has no burden to prove the move is necessary (Burgess, LaMusga, Brown & Yana). In initial determinations and in true joint-physical-custody cases, neither party has a presumption. The burden does not shift to the mover.

Notice and safety exceptions

Not automatically. Under Fam. Code 3024, in a custody order the court may direct a parent to notify the other parent of a plan to change the child's residence for more than 30 days, unless there is a prior written agreement. Notice goes by mail, return receipt requested, before the move, with a copy to counsel. To the extent feasible it must come within a minimum of 45 days before the move, so mediation can occur. The section applies only where the court has entered such an order and does not affect orders made before January 1, 1989.

Which moves trigger the rule

Statute 7501: any change of residence by a parent entitled to custody. Case law focuses on a move that would prejudice the child's rights or welfare. The notice trigger under 3024 is a move for more than 30 days, not a mileage line.

Objections and the effect of silence

No statutory objection deadline. The other parent moves the court to restrain the move (7501(a), a removal 'that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child') or to modify custody or visitation. Silence does not by itself waive anything.

The modification threshold

Not by itself. The changed-circumstance rule governs modification of a final custody order, and a move alone does not justify a change of custody without a substantial showing of detriment (Brown & Yana, quoting the move-away cases). A proposal to relocate is the occasion to raise it, not itself the change. In joint-physical-custody cases, modification runs under 3087 best interest (Burgess fn. 12).

Other qualifications

The Legislature wrote the Supreme Court's Burgess rule into the Family Code in 2003 (7501(b)), so a statute declares a case to be state public policy. Notice is at the court's option (3024) rather than required.

Important qualification

The favorable starting point concerns a qualifying custodial parent. Joint physical custody requires a different analysis. Domestic-violence rules can also change the analysis.

Burden summary

Qualifying custodial parent has a favorable starting point. Joint physical custody receives a fresh best-interest determination.

Notice summary

45 days, only if ordered

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally