California’s state assembly passed on May 3 AB 957, which amends Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to make “affirming” a child’s gender identity and transition to that gender identity a requirement for parental responsibility and child welfare. Thus, if passed by the state Senate and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill would criminalize parental disagreement with a child’s requests for gender transition surgery or not affirming a child’s claims of being a different gender.
The bill underwent amendments in the California Senate on June 6, so it will need to be passed there and then re-passed with the amendments in the state Assembly before Newsom can sign it. The amended version states, “This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.”
It does so by amending the factors a court should look at under Section 3011 to include “the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.” That section of the Family Code also provides that “the court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative in determining the best interests of the child.”
Those changes to the code would have two major changes on California law. The first is that it would require the judge to consider, if one parent or both parents object to a name or gender marker change for their child, if affirming a minor’s gender identity is in the child’s best interest. The second change is that the bill would require a court to consider whether parental affirmation of the child’s claimed gender identity is in the child’s best interests. Though the judge is not required to side against the parents in either case, critics believe the law would be used to punish parents who don’t want their kids to undergo gender transition treatment or surgery. The bill does not, however, define what “affirmation” means.
Erin Friday, a San Francisco attorney who is the co-lead of a parent coalition called Our Duty, which supports parents whose kids claim to be transgender, is a critic of the bill because she sees affirmation of “gender affirming” treatment and surgery to be against the child’s long-term health and welfare. Speaking on that, she said, “When you say that gender affirmation is in the child’s best interest for health, safety, and welfare, it takes nothing to say [non-affirmation] is now abuse—because you’re not taking care of the health, safety, and welfare if you’re not affirming them.”
Friday added, in the context of courts removing parents who don’t agree with the gender transition from a child’s life, “It’s not a giant leap–it’s a tiny step to get there. We know exactly where they are going with it. I didn’t think the bill could get worse, but it got worse.”
Pushing back on the criticism of the bill, a spokesperson said that the addition of affirmation as a factor would not necessarily lead to punishment of parents to don’t affirm the child’s gender identity as it is not the only factor, saying, “It’s not saying [affirmation] is the most important factor or determining factor. It’s one of many factors that the judge should consider while working out a custody agreement.“
"*" indicates required fields