What are California Parents With Joint Custody Allowed to Do?

If parents in a California family law case share joint custody, what does that mean?  It depends on the details.

The details made a difference in the recent case of Houser v. Superior Court (Larsen)(2025) 2025 DJDAR 11375, decided by the California Court of Appeal in Orange County.  In that case, one of the parents, Julie, was found in contempt for unilaterally authorizing the son of the parties, 17-year old Xander, to participate in school sports and for failing to consult on a decision to get Xander braces.

The order at issue was a 2019 decree referred to as the Joint Legal Custody Order.  This order stated that “[t]he parties shall share joint legal custody of Xander”.  There was also a Scheduling Order, which stated, “[n]either parent shall schedule any school events, extracurricular or religious events, medical or therapeutic appointments, or other events during the other parent’s custodial time without approval of the other parent”.

Five years later, in 2024, the other parent, Marlene, filed contempt against Julie. Marlene stated that Julie had unilaterally signed up the boy for a mountain bike event.  It was shown, however, that when the other parent objected, Julie withdrew Xander from the event.

Another charge was that Julie interfered with Marlene’s parenting time when she signed up Xander for the ski team.  Because Xander had ski practice at 9 a.m. on a Saturday, Marlene objected and ultimately chose not to travel for her visitation.

There were two other contempt counts.  Marlene said Julie unilaterally made the decision for Xander to joint a basketball team, although Julie testified that Xander had played on the team every year since 2018 with Marlene’s consent.  The final count was that Julie unilaterally moved forward with a treatment plan for the son’s braces.  Julie informed Marlene ahead of time of the dentist’s recommendations, attached the treatment plan, and stated “I will make the appointment”.  Marlene did not object to the treatment.

There are no juries in family law contempts because the maximum sentence is less than what the U.S. Constitution requires for a jury trial.  But the judge found Julie guilty on five counts and sentenced her to a fine of $10,000.00, which was $2,000.00 per count.

The Court of Appeal, however, unanimously reserved.  It reasoned that the scheduling order only prohibited a parent from “scheduling” an event during the other’s time without approval.  The justices said that in the cases involving the mountain bike event and the ski team practice, Julie did not set the dates and times of the events; the school and its coaches did. Thus, the appeal court drew a distinction between “authorizing” Xander to join a team and “scheduling” a specific practice or event.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal said that with the mountain bike event, Julie “cured any potential violation by withdrawing Xander from the event as soon as “the other parent objected.

The Court of Appeal said that the contempt findings regarding Julie’s unilateral decisions permitting Xander to join the ski team, the basketball team, and to get orthodontia treatment were invalid for contempt purposes because the joint legal custody order did not prohibit those decisions.

Rather, the order only stated “[t]he parties shall share joint legal custody of Xander”.  The justices relied on Family Code section 3083, which requires a court to “specify the circumstances under which the consent of both parents is required”.  When an order fails to do this, section 3083 provides that “either parent acting alone may exercise legal control of the child”.

The panel concluded by saying that “Contempt requires a willful violation of a clear and specific command, and that was not present here.”

Contempt is a serious moral and legal problem.  In California, a person can be sentenced for up to five days in jail for each count of contempt proven.  But the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, just like a regular criminal case.  And just like a regular criminal case, the citee, i.e., the person being charged with the contempt, can remain silent, making it harder for the charging party to prove the case.

While Houser says a lot about contempt, it also addresses joint custody.  A lot of people think that simply saying that parties enjoy “joint legal custody” is enough, unless there is some reason to give one party sole legal custody.  But there are a lot of issues involved in legal custody, and it appears that the underlying order in Houser from 2019 was not drafted with specific detail.

The lesson here is do not go at it alone.  Rather, make sure in your custody case you have a California family law attorney on your side, particularly one certified by the State Bar of Califoria, Board of Legal Specialization.