“Fam. Code, § 3100 provides that in making an order pursuant to Fam. Code, §§ 3080 et seq. (governing joint custody), the court must grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent unless it is shown that the visitation would be detrimental to the child’s best interest. A parent’s right to visitation is consonant with the public policy, declared in Fam. Code, § 3020, of assuring children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, and the courts will attempt to preserve visitation rights wherever possible. [In re Marriage of Birdsall, 197 Cal. App. 3d 1024, 243 Cal. Rptr. 287 (4th Dist. 1988)] If a custody order omits provisions for visitation, but does not expressly deny the right, a parent deprived of custody is entitled to reasonable visitation as a matter of natural right. [Feist v. Feist, 236 Cal. App. 2d 433, 46 Cal. Rptr. 93 (4th Dist. 1965) (quoted approvingly in Simek v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 3d 169, 172 Cal. Rptr. 564 (1st Dist. 1981)]”
“Visitation has been denied to parents who sexually abused the child [Cheeseman v. Cheeseman, 99 Cal. App. 290, 278 P. 242 (3d Dist. 1929)], who mistreated the children and the other parent in the children’s presence [Runsvold v. Runsvold, 61 Cal. App. 2d 731, 143 P.2d 746 (2d Dist. 1943)], and whose threats suggested the possibility of abduction of and harm to the child [Friedland v. Friedland, 174 Cal. App. 2d 874, 345 P.2d 322 (1st Dist. 1959)] A showing of difficulties between the parents, with no evidence of serious misconduct detrimentally affecting the child, is an insufficient basis for denying visitation. [Devine v. Devine, 213 Cal. App. 2d 549, 29 Cal. Rptr. 132 (2d Dist. 1963)] However, even in more serious cases of parental misconduct, supervised visitation, rather than a complete denial, is an appropriate disposition. [but see In re Marriage of Kim, 208 Cal. App. 3d 364, 256 Cal. Rptr. 217 (2d Dist. 1989) (visitation was properly denied temporarily to father whose violence and lack of cooperation rendered supervised visitation unworkable)]”
“Unless the court finds that no significant risk to the child exists, and states its reasons in writing or on the record, it may not grant physical or legal custody or unsupervised visitation to a person who is required to be registered as a sex offender under Pen. Code, § 290, and the victim of the offense was a minor, or to a person who has been convicted under Pen. Code, § 273a (cruelty to a child), Pen. Code, § 273b (corporal punishment or injury resulting in traumatic condition), or Pen. Code, § 647.6 (child molestation). Nor may the child may be placed in a home in which that person resides, or permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record. [Fam. Code § 3030, subd. (a)] Also, the court may not grant physical or legal custody or unsupervised visitation to a person convicted of first degree murder and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless the court finds no risk to the child’s health, safety, and welfare and states its reasons for such finding in writing or on the record. [Fam. Code, § 3030, subd. (c)] In making its finding, the court may consider the wishes of the child, credible evidence that the convicted parent was a victim of abuse, and expert testimony that the convicted parent suffers from the effects of battered women’s syndrome. [Fam. Code, § 3030, subd. (c)] Unless and until a custody or visitation order is issued by the court, no person may allow or cause the child to visit or remain in the custody of the convicted parent without the consent of the child’s custodian or legal guardian. [Fam. Code, § 3030, subd. (c)] Further, the court may not grant custody of, or visitation with, a child to a person who has been convicted under Pen. Code, § 261 (rape, duress, or menace) if a child was conceived as a result of that violation. [Fam. Code, § 3030, subd. (b)]”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
