**In re Marriage of C.D. & G.D.** When issuing custody and visitation orders, a trial court’s paramount concern is the best interests of the child. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3020| Fam. Code § 3020]], subd. (a).) To determine those interests, the court must consider whether the parent seeking custody or visitation has a history of abusing the child. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3011| § 3011]], subd. (a)(2)(A)(i).) If there are sexual abuse allegations, the court may order an expert to evaluate those allegations. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3118|§ 3118]], subd. (a).) But such an evaluation is not the only evidence that can support a finding of sexual abuse; rather, all “relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties” should be considered when determining whether a parent sexually abused a child. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3044|§ 3044]], subd. (e).) Father’s proposed rule similarly conflicts with caselaw and statutes outside the Family Code. It would upend longstanding California law that “\[a] trial court is not required to accept . . . expert opinion at face value” ([[In re Marriage of Battenburg (1994)]] 28 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1345), a principle that permits the court to deviate from an expert’s custody and visitation recommendations (see, e.g., [[Osgood v. Landon (2005)]] 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 436) instead of acting as a “mere rubber-stamp” for what the expert thinks best ([[In re Marriage of deRoque (1999)]] 74 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1096). ![[B318718.PDF]]