You might think that once one parent has been found to have committed domestic violence against the other parent, that the children would immediately be taken from the abuser. But, rarely are these cases that black and white. We're going to look at why that is, starting here with reviewing the status of the custody proceedings between Ioan and Alice and then examining the laws that govern how custody decisions are made. Separating children from parents they've bonded to is always going to be traumatic for children, but in the case of domestic violence, California law creates a presumption that it's not in the best interests of the child for an abuser to receive sole or joint custody. This means that Alice is very much at a disadvantage if she insists on contesting custody, unless she can prove to the court that she's sufficiently rehabilitated that it is in the childrens' best interest for her to have custody. 00:00 Intro 00:35 The story of the custody dispute between Ioan and Alice so far 04:04 There's a stipulated agreement for visitation, but it hasn't been reliable 06:34 There's a contested custody hearing scheduled in July 2023 07:32 Parental rights are constitutionally protected, but the State acts as parens patriae 09:16 There's a strong presumption that contact with both parents is best for children 11:20 These are the specific statutory factors the court looks at to make custody decisions 16:31 But they don't all weigh the same, and DV creates a presumption against custody 19:45 You generally need to show rehabilitative actions to overcome the presumption 21:53 The DVRO finding is going to trigger the DV presumption, so blowing it off was unwise 23:47 Up next: So given this legal position, what explains the legal strategies here? Part One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQDzWkuYcjw Part Two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Fa2_jmnMQ Part Three: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPgGhmKoB4 Part Four: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2kD0bJHVb4