What does CA law say about shared parenting and what do CA residents say?

California law states that children should have “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents after they enter the “family” court arena or one is summoned into court. The law also requires judges to begin with the presumption that each parent is fit to have contact with their children. In practice, however, the threshold for labeling a parent “unfit” is so low that this presumption becomes meaningless. For example, judges often restrict a parent’s access to their own children under the claim that doing so will reduce “conflict,” and then cut off contact while imposing child support obligations, causing more conflict with their orders than already exists. 

This idea—that limiting a parent’s access reduces conflict—is widely disputed. Between November 2020 and January 2021, the National Parents Organization conducted independent polling in seven states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, and Wisconsin. Between 72% and 85% of respondents agreed that when parents are in conflict, awarding sole custody to one parent actually increases conflict.

So why have so many California parents with no risk factors lost frequent and continuing contact with their children—and even legal rights to their children—only after entering a California family court?

One explanation is the influence of the AFCC, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which plays a major role in California’s family and juvenile dependency systems. The AFCC is composed of professionals—judges, attorneys, psychologists, custody evaluators, therapists, supervised‑visitation providers, social workers, etc. —whose livelihoods depend on these courts. Once involved, these professionals often subject parents to lengthy evaluations and processes that can last years, drain financial resources, and have long‑term detrimental  consequences for children and future generations.

With the support of family court judges, AFCC‑affiliated professionals can end a targeted parent’s contact with their children, mandate supervised visitation, produce evaluations that cannot be meaningfully challenged, and require parents to pay substantial fees.

In California family court, the judge—the sole decision‑maker—is the central figure. AFCC members are supposed to serve only as witnesses, yet their influence is significant.

How can parents protect their families from judge’s decisions they believe are unfair, inadequately supported, difficult to challenge, and/or were created to basically financially support AFCC members? Our proposed safeguard is to extend the right to have matters regarding legal rights/custody decided by a jury. Texas allows parents to request a jury to keep legal rights to their own child(ren) in family‑court and child‑protection (CPS) dependency proceedings, while California does not.

To explore whether this difference has broader social consequences, some advocates compare statewide indicators between California and Texas. They point to data showing that Texas reports lower levels of criminal offenses, incarceration, homelessness, housing shortages, and taxes. They also note that California reports slower job growth, slower population growth, lower K–12 academic performance, and lower air quality—sometimes attributed to differences in commuting patterns and household structures.

Supporters of jury‑trial rights emphasize that Texas is currently the only state that gives parents the option of a jury when they are brought into family court or juvenile dependency court. They argue that this provides an additional layer of protection for families facing the possibility of separation. 

The best way for children to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents is to avoid California family courts altogether.