Virginia Code 20-124.3: The Ten Best-Interest Factors

When a Virginia judge decides custody or visitation, the decision is governed by ten factors listed in Virginia Code § 20-124.3. These Virginia best interests of the child factors cover the child’s age and health, each parent’s health, the existing parent-child bond, the child’s other important relationships, past and future caregiving, each parent’s willingness to support the other’s role, cooperation and dispute resolution, the child’s own preference, any history of abuse within the last ten years, and a catch-all for anything else relevant.¹ No single factor controls. The judge balances all ten against the specific facts of your family.

The Ten Factors, One by One

1. The Age and Condition of the Child

The court looks at the child’s age, developmental stage, and any special needs.¹ A toddler with intensive daily-care needs creates different demands than a teenager, and the judge adjusts expectations accordingly.

2. The Age and Condition of Each Parent

Judges look at whether a chronic illness, disability, or mental-health condition would interfere with day-to-day parenting. The standard is not perfect health. A parent managing a well-controlled condition is in a very different position from a parent whose untreated condition makes consistent care unreliable. Courts want evidence of stability and follow-through.

3. The Relationship Between Each Parent and the Child

Factor three examines the existing bond. The statute directs the court to consider each parent’s positive involvement in the child’s life and their ability to recognize and respond to the child’s emotional, intellectual, and physical needs.¹ This goes beyond who the child “prefers.” A parent who shows up for school events, knows the pediatrician’s name, and can describe the child’s friendships demonstrates the kind of engaged relationship the court values. Can you articulate your child’s anxieties, strengths, and routines without reading from a list? That knowledge signals a deep relationship, and it is hard to fake in testimony.

4. The Child’s Other Important Relationships

Factor four broadens the lens. The court considers the child’s relationships with siblings, extended family, and peers.¹ Keeping siblings together carries real weight. Splitting brothers and sisters across two households disrupts one of the most stabilizing relationships a child has during a divorce, and judges are reluctant to do it without strong reasons. If grandparents provide after-school care or a cousin is the child’s closest companion, the arrangement that preserves those connections has an advantage.

5. Past and Future Caregiving

Factor five looks backward and forward. The court examines which parent handled the daily work of raising the child — who got them dressed, drove them to school, scheduled appointments, and managed homework.¹ A parent who has been the primary caregiver for years starts with a practical advantage because the child’s routine is already built around that parent.

Past involvement alone is not enough. The court also evaluates each parent’s plan for continued care. If a parent who previously worked part-time is now taking on longer hours, the judge wants to know who will cover the gap. A specific plan for childcare, transportation, and involvement in school carries more weight than vague promises.

Active-duty service members face a unique challenge here. A deployment is not voluntary absence, but it does disrupt day-to-day caregiving. Under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a service member whose military duties prevent them from appearing in court can request a 90-day stay of the custody proceeding, with possible extensions. The stay is not automatic. The service member must show that active duty materially affects their ability to attend. Virginia courts cannot permanently alter custody solely because a parent was deployed, and the caregiving record before deployment remains relevant.

6. Willingness to Support the Other Parent’s Relationship

Factor six is where many custody cases are won or lost. The court evaluates whether each parent actively supports the child’s contact with the other parent or creates barriers.¹ Unreasonably denying visitation or badmouthing the other parent in front of the child works against you. Judges interpret this broadly: canceling scheduled visits, “forgetting” to pass along messages, or making drop-offs unnecessarily hostile all count.

This factor rewards the parent who can separate personal resentment from the child’s need for two involved parents. If you are the one facilitating phone calls, sharing school photos, and keeping the other parent in the loop, that pattern speaks volumes.

7. Cooperation and Dispute Resolution

Factor seven overlaps with factor six but focuses on conflict resolution. The court looks at each parent’s demonstrated ability to maintain a close and continuing relationship with the child and to work through disagreements without dragging everything back to court.¹

Judges often look at communication records — text messages, emails, co-parenting app logs. A parent who responds constructively to scheduling changes and compromises on minor issues projects reliability. A parent who escalates every disagreement or refuses to communicate signals the opposite. Persistent high conflict often results in more restrictive visitation designed to limit direct interaction between the parents.

8. The Child’s Preference

Factor eight allows the court to consider the child’s own wishes, but only if the judge finds the child has enough intelligence, understanding, age, and experience to express a meaningful preference.¹ There is no magic age at which a child’s preference becomes relevant. A mature twelve-year-old might carry considerable influence; a coached fifteen-year-old might carry less. The preference is never the final word. It is one data point weighed alongside everything else.

9. History of Abuse

Factor nine carries more weight than almost any other consideration. The court must review any history of family abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse, or any act of violence, force, or threat that occurred within the ten years before the petition was filed.¹ Incidents older than a decade fall outside this factor, though a judge could still consider them under the catch-all.

Virginia defines “family abuse” as any act of violence, force, or threat that results in bodily injury or creates a reasonable fear of death, sexual assault, or bodily injury, committed by one family or household member against another.² “Family or household member” covers spouses, former spouses, parents, children, in-laws living in the home, anyone who shares a child with the accused, and people who have cohabited within the past year.

The statute also references “act of violence, force, or threat” as separately defined in § 19.2-152.7:1, which covers forceful detention, stalking, criminal sexual assault, and any criminal offense causing bodily injury or reasonable fear of harm.³ Protective orders, criminal convictions, and documented police reports all serve as evidence. In cases with confirmed abuse, supervised visitation is common, and judges may require completion of a treatment program before unsupervised contact is considered.

10. The Catch-All Factor

Factor ten gives the judge flexibility to consider anything else relevant to the child’s wellbeing.¹ This is where practical considerations like the distance between the parents’ homes, the quality of local schools, each parent’s work schedule, and the child’s ties to a particular community come into play. If a fact matters to your child’s daily life and does not fit under another factor, factor ten is where it lands.

How the Judge Weighs the Factors Together

No factor is a tiebreaker on its own. The judge balances all ten against the facts of your family, and different factors carry different weight depending on what is at stake. A stable caregiving history may dominate in one case; a school-age child’s clear preference may swing another.

One important interaction: if the court finds a history of abuse under factor nine, it may disregard factor six entirely.¹ A parent who limits contact to protect a child from an abusive co-parent should not be penalized under the cooperation factor for doing so.

How the Child’s Voice Reaches the Judge

When the judge decides to hear from the child directly under factor eight, Virginia law allows an in-camera interview conducted outside the presence of the parents and their attorneys. A record of the interview must be made and included in the case file unless the court determines that doing so would endanger the child’s safety, or both parties agree to waive it.⁴

The court may also appoint a guardian ad litem — an attorney whose job is to independently investigate and represent the child’s best interests. The appointment is not automatic. When both parents already have their own attorneys, the court will only appoint a guardian ad litem if it finds the child’s interests are not otherwise adequately represented.⁵

Once appointed, the guardian ad litem has broad access to records. State and local agencies, schools, hospitals, and mental-health providers must allow them to inspect and copy records related to the child without parental consent.⁵ The guardian interviews the child, visits homes, talks to teachers and therapists, and reports findings to the judge. The recommendation is not binding, but judges rely on it heavily when the parents’ accounts sharply conflict.

The Judge Must Explain the Decision

Except in consent orders where both sides have agreed, the judge must communicate the basis for the custody decision and explain how the relevant factors were weighed.¹ This can be done orally in court or in a written opinion. Either way, you are entitled to know which factors drove the result. That explanation becomes critical if you need to appeal. An appellate court reviews whether the trial judge properly considered the statutory factors, and a vague or conclusory ruling is easier to challenge.

1
Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code 20-124.3 – Best Interests of the Child; Visitation
2
Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code 16.1-228 – Definitions
3
Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code 19.2-152.7:1 – Definitions
4
Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code 20-124.2:1 – In Camera Interviews of Child; Record
5
Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code 16.1-266 – Appointment of Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem