Fathers of young children were historically at a disadvantage in seeking custody of their children due to tender years doctrine—a theory courts adopted in the belief that children had a greater need for the love and care of their mothers during their tender years. Under the tender years doctrine, custody of young children was automatically given to the mother unless there were unusual circumstances. Today, courts more often recognize the important role both parents play in the lives of young children, and usually order some form of shared custody arrangement. But there are factors the court may consider that sometimes favor one parent over the other in determining who will be the primary custodian of the children—such as giving preference to a parent who has not been working outside the home, and has therefore been spending more time taking care of the children’s daily needs.

In California, the tender years doctrine, which favored mothers in child custody cases, has been replaced by a more gender-neutral approach. Current state law requires courts to prioritize the best interests of the child when making custody decisions. This means that no parent, regardless of gender, is automatically presumed to be the better choice for custody. Instead, California courts consider various factors to determine what arrangement serves the child's health, safety, and welfare the most. These factors include, but are not limited to, the amount of contact with both parents, the child's health, safety, and welfare, any history of family abuse, and the nature and amount of contact with both parents. While the court may consider which parent has been the primary caregiver, this is just one of many factors and does not automatically result in custody being awarded to that parent. The goal is to facilitate a custody arrangement that allows the child to have frequent and continuing contact with both parents, provided it is in the child's best interest.