3190–3193: Counseling of Parents and Child
When family conflict escalates to the point where it may harm a child, California law allows the court to intervene by ordering counseling. Chapter 12 gives courts the authority to require parents, children, or other involved parties to participate in outpatient counseling services. The goal is to reduce conflict, support communication, and ultimately protect the child’s wellbeing.
The court may require counseling for up to one year if it finds two things: first, that the conflict poses a serious risk to the child’s best interest; and second, that counseling would help address that risk. This applies to disputes not only between parents, but also between a parent and child, or any other party seeking custody or visitation.
In assessing whether the conflict endangers the child, the court must consider any history of domestic violence within the past five years. If those factors are present and counseling is deemed beneficial, the court can order participation in counseling with a licensed mental health provider or through a community program.
Cost is another consideration. The court must determine whether paying for counseling would create an undue financial burden. If not, it may require the parties to cover the cost in proportions it finds fair. The court must clearly explain in its order why both the counseling and the cost arrangement are in the child’s best interest.
The court is not permitted to automatically require the parties to return after counseling ends. However, any party can request a new hearing or counseling order if problems continue.
In cases involving past abuse or an active protective order, counseling must be conducted separately to avoid further trauma or intimidation. Each party pays for their own counseling unless the court finds reason to split the cost differently. Costs for children’s counseling are divided as outlined under existing child support laws.
Importantly, the law prohibits the court from ordering any reunification programs that involve tactics like forced custody transfers, out-of-state stays, or coercive measures. These safeguards are in place to prevent children from being subjected to distressing or dangerous situations under the guise of therapy.
Key takeaways:
- Courts may order counseling when conflict threatens the child’s wellbeing and counseling would provide meaningful benefit.
- The court must weigh financial impact before assigning costs and must justify both the need and affordability in its order.
- Victims of abuse may receive counseling in separate sessions for safety.
- Courts are prohibited from ordering coercive or potentially harmful reunification programs.
Chapter 12 provides a structured and legally sound approach to handling high-conflict family dynamics, using counseling as a tool to protect children and support healthier relationships—without compromising safety or fairness. Let me know when you’re ready for Chapter 13.