|
|
Last Modified on Nov 15, 2026
By H. William Edgar, Edgar & Dow
A child sexual-abuse allegation can change the course of a California custody case immediately. The court must address the child’s safety while determining what evidence is needed and how it should be evaluated. Family Code section 3118 establishes special requirements for certain custody evaluations involving these allegations. It does not mean every accusation automatically triggers an evaluation, and ordering an evaluation is not a finding that abuse occurred.
For parents, the immediate questions are practical: What happens to the existing parenting schedule? Who investigates? How can the child be protected without repeated questioning? What can the judge consider? The answers depend on the evidence, the court’s findings, and whether a family, criminal, or juvenile dependency proceeding is involved.
When does California require a section 3118 evaluation?
Family Code section 3118 applies in a contested custody or visitation proceeding when the court has appointed a custody evaluator or referred the case for a full or partial court-connected evaluation, investigation, or assessment, and the court determines that there is a serious allegation of child sexual abuse. When those conditions are met, the evaluation must comply with the statute.
The phrase “serious allegation” has a specific legal meaning. The statute refers to sexual abuse as defined by Penal Code section 11165.1. The allegation must be based at least partly on a child’s statements to specified professionals, such as law enforcement, a child welfare investigator, a mandated reporter, or court-appointed personnel, or be supported by the substantial independent corroboration described in Family Code section 3011.
That threshold concerns the required investigation. It does not establish that the accused person committed abuse. Nor does the absence of a section 3118 order establish that a report was false. A court may also require a section 3118 evaluation when a child-abuse allegation arises in other circumstances. Counsel should identify what the court has actually found and what its appointment order requires, rather than assume that every evaluation follows the same rules.
How is this different from a 3111 or 730 evaluation?
A Family Code section 3111 custody evaluation investigates custody and visitation issues identified by the court. An Evidence Code section 730 evaluation involves a court-appointed expert whose assignment depends on the disputed issues. Section 3118 adds specific investigative and reporting requirements when its conditions apply.
The appointment’s label does not answer every question. A parent should understand the actual scope of the investigation, the evaluator’s qualifications, the records to be obtained, and the report deadline. A general appointment cannot be used to sidestep section 3118 after the court has made the serious-allegation determination.
Riverside Superior Court’s information on custody evaluations describes these different assignments. The statewide evaluation rules and the particular appointment order govern the work. A treating therapist, a police investigator, and a court-appointed evaluator have different responsibilities, even when each has information concerning the same child.
What happens to visitation while the evaluation is pending?
The court must consider whether the child’s best interests require visitation to be supervised, suspended, or denied while the section 3118 evaluation is underway. There is no automatic rule that an allegation alone ends all contact. There is also no requirement that the child remain in a dangerous arrangement until the final report arrives.
The requested interim order should address the specific safety concern. Depending on the evidence, that may involve professional supervision, restrictions on particular contact, or suspension of visits. If supervision is proposed, the order should identify an appropriate provider and workable arrangements. The general presence of another adult is not necessarily an adequate response to an identified risk. Our supervised visitation guide explains additional considerations.
Section 3118 contains an exception for an emergency court-ordered partial investigation used to decide immediate temporary protections. Once the emergency is resolved and the court considers permanent custody or visitation orders, the statute’s requirements apply. The exception allows urgent action; it does not turn an abbreviated emergency inquiry into a substitute for the required later evaluation.
If there is immediate danger, contact emergency services. Report suspected abuse to the appropriate child protective services or law enforcement agency. For family court relief, obtain prompt advice about emergency custody orders and the evidence needed to request them. Reporting an allegation does not itself rewrite an existing order.
What must the evaluator investigate?
The evaluator must consult child welfare services and law enforcement concerning the allegations and obtain their recommendations about the child’s safety. The work includes reviewing and summarizing the child welfare file, obtaining available criminal-background information through law enforcement, and considering relevant interviews and medical information. The statute protects the reporting person’s identity and places restrictions on handling agency records.
These requirements matter because a custody recommendation should not rest on an isolated account while readily available, material information goes unexamined. The evaluator needs to understand what each agency investigated, what information it obtained, and the status of its work. An agency’s decision to close a matter and a family court’s custody decision involve different responsibilities and should not be casually treated as interchangeable.
The evaluator must review an available multidisciplinary child interview. If an adequate interview is unavailable, the statute addresses obtaining one or interviewing the child, while avoiding repeated interviews wherever possible. The evaluator must also request an appropriate forensic medical examination or explain in writing why one is unnecessary. That is a professional determination; parents should not arrange repeated examinations simply to create additional evidence.
How should a parent respond to a child’s disclosure?
Take the child seriously and keep the response calm. Attend to immediate safety and necessary medical care. Do not promise a particular court outcome or make the child responsible for deciding what happens next. Appropriate professionals should investigate the allegation.
Preserve what the child spontaneously said, the date, and the circumstances as accurately as possible. Distinguish the child’s actual words from your interpretation. Avoid leading questions, rehearsing an account, or asking the child to repeat it for relatives. Repeated questioning can distress the child and complicate the evaluation of the evidence.
Give counsel the existing orders, relevant communications, agency contact information, and the chronology of events. Identify what you personally observed and what someone else reported. Preserve original messages and records rather than rewriting or selectively summarizing them. Our discussion of children’s statements in custody proceedings addresses why the circumstances surrounding a statement matter.
An allegation should be presented through the proper reporting and court processes. Posting it online or circulating intimate details among friends can harm the child, compromise privacy, and distract from the protection the court needs to consider.
What should an accused parent do?
Take the allegation seriously, obtain legal advice promptly, and understand the orders currently in force. Preserve relevant communications and identify witnesses with firsthand information. Do not delete material because it appears unhelpful, approach the child to obtain a retraction, or pressure another person to change an account.
Where a criminal investigation is possible, family and criminal counsel may need to coordinate. Statements made during an evaluation can have consequences beyond the custody proceeding. The correct response to a particular interview or records request requires advice about the actual circumstances; an internet article cannot resolve those choices.
A parent disputing an allegation should focus on reliable evidence and the child’s needs. Anger at the accusation is understandable, but hostility toward the evaluator does not establish that the allegation is mistaken. Likewise, the court should not be asked to treat an unproven allegation as deliberately fabricated. Knowingly false allegations raise a separate issue requiring its own evidentiary basis.
What goes into the confidential report?
The report must address the child’s safety and include the material investigative information required by the statute. That includes relevant interviews, law enforcement information, appropriate medical and professional information, the status of child-abuse investigations, and recommendations concerning protection and therapeutic needs. Relevant information that tends to disprove an allegation matters as well as information supporting it.
Under California Rules of Court, rule 5.220, the evaluator must provide the required analysis and use the confidential section 3118 report form, FL-329. The evaluator must disclose significant limitations in the investigation. A missing interview, unavailable record, or incomplete agency investigation may affect the weight of a conclusion and the next steps needed before a final decision.
Section 3118 requires service of the confidential report on the parties or their attorneys at least 10 days before the hearing. Review it promptly with counsel. If it arrives late or leaves a material issue unresolved, raise the problem through the proper procedure. A late report does not create an automatic continuance without a court ruling.
Can a parent challenge the evaluation?
Yes. The evaluator makes recommendations; the judge decides custody and visitation. A useful challenge identifies a material factual error, an omitted source, an unsupported inference, or a failure to follow the required process. It explains how the problem affects the recommendation concerning the child.
For example, suppose a report assumes that a medical appointment never occurred, but the relevant records establish that it did. Counsel can determine how to present those records and question the evaluator about their significance. That is more useful than a general accusation that the evaluator “took sides.” This example illustrates a method of analysis, not a prediction about a case outcome.
Discuss the hearing procedure, the evaluator’s availability, and any needed testimony or objections well before the hearing. A written objection is not necessarily a substitute for presenting admissible evidence and examining the evaluator. Once the court has made the serious-allegation determination, counsel should also address whether a later evaluation satisfies section 3118 before the court relies on it.
What if CPS or the juvenile court becomes involved?
A CPS investigation does not necessarily mean a juvenile dependency case has been filed. That distinction matters. If a dependency petition concerning the child is filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, section 3118 requires suspension of the evaluation, investigation, or assessment, with its information made available to the juvenile court.
Parents should give counsel the actual agency documents, petition, and court orders. The family court proceeding must be coordinated with the juvenile court’s authority; a parent should not seek a conflicting family court order while ignoring an active dependency case. See what happens to a custody case when CPS becomes involved.
Protect the child’s privacy throughout the case
The report is confidential. Receiving a copy does not authorize posting it, sending it to relatives, or using it freely in another proceeding. Juvenile records, agency information, and the child’s treatment communications may carry additional restrictions or privileges. Obtain advice before sharing any of them.
The child’s treatment needs also continue while the adults litigate. Clarify which professional provides treatment and which evaluates the custody dispute. Keep scheduling and record requests organized so the child is not unnecessarily pulled between overlapping appointments or asked to carry messages between adults.
Speak with Edgar & Dow
If a sexual-abuse allegation has arisen in your custody case, the first priorities are the child’s immediate safety, the current orders, and the next required court action. Contact Edgar & Dow or call 951-684-6885 to schedule a consultation. Bring the appointment order, agency information, any report already received, and the hearing date so we can evaluate the issues that need attention.
For related questions, visit our California Child Custody and Visitation Library.
Legal authorities and court resources
Family Code section 3118; section 3110.5; rule 5.220; and Riverside Superior Court’s custody evaluation information.
Related
