In California, the family law courts will approve a schedule that the parents have been following for as long as it does not significantly affect the children. This is referred to as your parenting time or visitation.

The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC is a Sacramento law firm, located in Sacramento, California that practices family law and represents clients in Sacramento, California and clients in Northern California with services they need and deserve when addressing divorce and child custody. Call now our Lawyer Hotline. Call now 321-951-9164.

Child Custody Modification

I want to modify child custody. How do I file a request for child custody modification? I want sole custody. How do I modify child custody? I want 50/50 custody. Can I change my child custody orders? I want joint custody. Can I see my children more often?

You may want a child custody modification when the current child custody order is no longer workable. Child custody modification can occur at any time. There can be a number of reasons most of which involve a change in circumstances.

Child’s Best Interests

A court will not consider your request for child custody modification if the current arrangement appears to be working. The court’s concern is the best interests of the child. The court does not want to interrupt a child’s way of life and well-being for frivolous reasons. Any request for child custody modification will be scrutinized. The noncustodial parent will need to explain why they are requesting a child custody modification. They will also need to explain why it is in the best interests of the children. The custodial parent, who is facing a child custody modification request, should take into consideration whether or not the schedule has been working for the children and them. They should also consider the effects the changes will have on the children and them.

Right to Frequent Contact

Both parents have a right to enjoy frequent and continuing contact with their children. This means that both parents are to have contact with their children unless it is not in the best interests of the children. Best interests of the children includes effects from child abuse, child endangerment, domestic violence, or substance abuse.

Visitation and Parenting Time

The custodial parent cannot interfere with the non-custodial parent’s visitation; also known as parenting time. A Court will take into consideration interference and uncooperative parenting by one parent when they make child custody decisions. Interference often occurs when the custodial parent:

Plans activities with the children during the non-custodial parent’s visitation time;
Refuses to follow court orders to pick up and drop off children or delays the exchange of the children to the non-custodial parent;
Alienates the children by encouraging them to not see the non-custodial parent;
Uses the children as messengers by discussing with them divorce or custody proceedings to make the non-custodial parent’s time less enjoyable;
Makes disparaging remarks about the non-custodial parent to influence how the children’s feel or view the non-custodial parent;
Makes false allegations about the non-custodial parent that they have committed child abuse, child neglect, or domestic violence against the child, sibling, or the custodial parent;
Refuses to co-parent with the non-custodial parent;
Violates joint legal custody rights by not consulting with the non-custodial parent or by not obtaining their consent on important decisions involving the children.

Jurisdictional Issues

The jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (FPKPA) and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) must be satisfied whenever a California court is called upon for a child custody modification or visitation order.

Both the FPKPA and the UCCJEA determine the proper forum as between interested states (or countries) for litigation of virtually all child custody modification and visitation disputes.

If all concerned parties were California residents when a California court made the original child custody modification or visitation determination and the parties remain California residents when a modification is sought, the California court’s “continuing jurisdiction” will not be in issue. UCCJEA jurisdictional issues arise when either (a) a California court is asked to modify an out-of-state custody/visitation order; or (b) a California court is asked to modify its own custody/visitation order after any of the concerned parties has moved away.

Generally, the state that made the initial child custody determination will have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify the order. There cannot be “concurrent” UCCJEA modification jurisdiction.

Orders from Other States

A California court may not consider another state’s order for a child custody modification or visitation request unless:

California has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination. i.e. California is the “home state” or there is a “significant connection” with the State of California, and, either:
The other state court determines (i) it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because neither the child, nor the child and a parent, nor the child and a “person acting as a parent,” have a “significant connection” with that state and “substantial evidence” is no longer available in that state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships, or (ii) a California court would be a “more convenient forum” to entertain the proceeding; or,
A California court or the other state court determines that the child, child’s parents and any “person acting as a parent” do not presently reside in the other state.

If the California court is on notice (through the documents supplied by the parties) that custody litigation has been commenced in another state having jurisdiction “substantially in accordance with” the UCCJEA, the California court must stay its proceeding and communicate with the other state court to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.

Change In Circumstance

A party seeking to modify a “permanent” custody order can do so only upon a showing of a significant change of circumstances so affecting the child that modification is essential to the child’s welfare. Absent such a showing, any modification would be an abuse of discretion as denying the child the benefits of a stable home environment and thus would not be in his or her best interest.

The “changed circumstances” rule is an adjunct of the statutory “best interests” test for determining child custody. It furthers the paramount goal of preserving the need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements, unless some significant change in circumstances indicates a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.

The “changed circumstances” rule is triggered only after a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication. The ordinary best interest standard, without the additional changed circumstances burden of proof, applies when the court makes an initial custody adjudication and when it adjudicates custody following any temporary or interim custody order.

Because of the child’s predominant need for stability and continuity and the state’s strong interest in preserving same (above), the burden of persuasion is on the moving party to show how circumstances have changed and why the custody modification would be in the child’s best interests. The burden is two-fold in modification proceedings: The party seeking to change an existing custody order assumes both the burden of (a) persuading the trier of fact that a new custody arrangement is in the child’s best interests, and (b) putting forth sufficient evidence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification.

Parent’s Relocation

A noncustodial parent’s relocation far enough away to preclude the exercise of existing visitation rights can itself be ground for modifying child custody. The new visitation order would allow for a different contact schedule – longer, but less frequent, visitation periods (such as increasing spring or summer vacation visitation time in lieu of weekend visitation). Such a modifications implement public policy in assuring the child of continuing contact with both parents.

In a move-away contest, where the noncustodial parent is unable to meet the changed circumstances/detriment burden, the move-away likely will still warrant a modification of orders. The concerns are to minimize the children’s loss of contact with the noncustodial parent. The trial court has discretion to order the custodial move-away parent to bear the visitation travel costs either directly or through a “special circumstances” takeoff from guideline child support.

Move Away Order

You may be able to obtain a child custody modification order if either you or the other parent wants to relocate. Prior to ordering a child custody modification, the court will consider the following:

The motivation of the parent who is relocating;
What effects the move has on the visitation schedule;
If the parents have communicated a way to rework the visitation schedule; and,
The effects on the child’s life (after-school or sporting activities, friendships, religious upbringing).

Stability Of Child’s Environment To Be Considered

The paramount interest in continuity and permanency of custodial placement will often weigh against a custody modification request. In some cases, however, a custody modification is needed to preserve the children’s interest in stability and continuity of environment.

For example, although a custodial parent generally has the presumptive right to relocate with the children, stability and continuity of environment regarding adolescent (teenage) children may lie not with either parent, but with the children’s circle of friends, activities and ties within a school or community. In that case, the trial court may properly exercise its discretion in determining the contemplated move-away requires a change in physical custody so that the children can remain in their existing community.

Frustration Of Visitation

In extreme cases, conduct by the custodial parent designed to frustrate visitation and communication between the child and other parent may be ground for changing custody. In one case, it was found that Mother’s “unrelenting pattern of frustrating” Father’s visitation rights, coupled with findings that Father was more likely to permit child’s frequent and continuing contact with noncustodial parent, “alone provided adequate grounds for changing custody” to Father.

Violation of the Agreed-Upon Visitation Schedule

If one of the parents is not cooperating with the current visitation schedule, a court may consider a change to the child custody arrangement. A court will consider the following factors before ordering a child custody modification:

Whether or not a parent is not cooperating with the visitation schedule;
Any agreement reached by the parents; and,
Reasons why the current visitation schedule has not been followed.

Child’s Preference

As with an initial custody determination, the court is required to “consider” and give “due weight” to the preferences of a child of “sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody.” Whether the minor is of “sufficient age and capacity” (so as to satisfy the threshold prerequisite to consideration of the child’s wishes) varies with each child. The requisite maturity is not measured by any particular chronological age. Generally, courts become more receptive as the child approaches teenage years, but some courts will listen to children as young as seven or eight.

Change In Economic Circumstances is not Factor

The parents’ relative economic positions – even if changed since the prior custody determination – cannot be considered. Simply stated, economic advantage or comparative income has no bearing on a child custody adjudication. If in fact the custodial parent’s financial resources are insufficient to provide proper care for the child, the remedy is through a child support order – not through a change of custody.

Effect Of Death Of A Parent

A child custody modification will automatically occur if the custodial parent dies during the child’s minority. The surviving parent immediately becomes entitled to sole custody, unless it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that such custody would not be in the child’s best interests and would be detrimental to the child.
Therefore, the question of “child custody modification” becomes moot with the custodial parent’s death: i.e., since there is now only one parent to assert parental rights, the original custody order itself is moot.

Similarly, a child custody modification order technically becomes “nonmodifiable” with the noncustodial parent’s death (again, assuming the parents were the only parties to the order). Thus, third parties who for the first time who want to contest custody or visitation must do so by way of an independent proceeding (guardianship, dependency or, grandparent visitation request).