Multigenerational households in child custody cases

In child custody disputes, parents want to portray themselves as the better caregiver. Understandably, they will use any fact to distinguish themselves from their co-parents. A common argument made by litigants is that the other parent cannot care for the minor child as well because that parent lives in a crowded multigenerational household (three or more generations of a family) and that a child needs physical space and privacy. This argument is generally unpersuasive for two reasons: (1) it lacks cultural sensitivity; and (2) it implicitly relies on a parent’s comparative income or economic advantage, which are not permissible bases for a custody award.

An argument against a child living in a multigenerational household does not account for cultural differences. For the past century, American culture has prized nuclear family households (a married couple and their children). However, many cultures around the world have practiced multigenerational living for centuries. It is very common in parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America for people to live with extended family under the same roof – grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, and children. Moreover, in the United States, people of color are more likely to live in multigenerational households. According to the Pew Research Center, 24% of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, 26% of African Americans, and 26% of Hispanic/Latino Americans lived in multigenerational households in 2021, compared to 13% of those who are Caucasian.

The reasoning underlying the argument against multigenerational households is, in many cases, based on wealth. It assumes that the parent who can afford a house or apartment with a separate room for the minor child is the better parent and that a poor parent cannot be a good parent. However, in Burchard v. Garay, 42 Cal.3d 531, 539 (1986), our Supreme Court held that “comparative income or economic advantage is not a permissible basis for a custody award.” In rejecting a trial court’s decision to award custody based on a parent’s homeownership and lack of need for childcare, the Supreme Court opined that “there is no basis for assuming a correlation between wealth and good parenting or wealth and happiness.”

Attorneys and litigants can make more persuasive arguments than simply that the number of residents in a house is detrimental to the best interest of a child. For example, is there someone at the parent’s residence who has a criminal history that poses a threat to the child? Is the residence filthy, infested, and uninhabitable? Will the child have access to drugs or firearms at the residence? These arguments strike at the core principle of family law, namely assuring the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

My perspective is shaped by the fact that I benefited from a multigenerational household. When my family and I fled Burma in 1988, we settled in the San Gabriel Valley. For most of my childhood, I lived with 9 family members in a three-bedroom condominium. There were certainly challenges and conflicts. Try sharing a bathroom or telephone with four sisters! However, the physical space and privacy we lacked were substantially made up for with love and support. My family was able to pool resources and share burdens. For instance, my grandfather walked me and my little sister home after elementary school because my parents were working 12 to 14 hour-days as a stock boy and cashier. I am not alone in my experience. The Pew Research Center has stated that the share of the U.S. population in multigenerational homes has more than doubled, from 7% in 1971 to 18% in 2021.

The nuclear family household may be the most common form of family living arrangement in the United States, but that does not necessarily mean that other forms are harmful to minor children. A child’s best interest may very well be to live in a multigenerational household.