California bill mandates judges to prioritize ‘gender-affirming’ parents in child custody disputes, awaits Newsom’s approval.

California Senate Passes‌ Bill Favoring “Gender-Affirming” Parents in Child Custody Disputes

Parental rights groups are expressing outrage‌ over the recent passage of Assembly Bill 957⁤ by the California Senate. This bill, which will favor “gender-affirming” parents⁣ in child custody disputes, was approved by a vote of 30-9 along party lines, with⁣ Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposing⁣ it. California Governor ⁣Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, now has until October 15 to‍ decide whether to sign the bill into law or veto it.

Implications of the Bill

If signed into law, Assembly Bill 957 would require courts to ​consider parents who support their ‍child’s⁤ transgender identity⁣ as ‌acting in the best interests of the child. This legislation has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it will make⁢ it impossible for anyone to reject the notion of gender transition. Family court judges would be compelled to⁣ favor gender-affirming parents, potentially disregarding other factors involved in custody disputes.

Opponents of the bill,​ such as Jennifer Kennedy, a ⁣civil⁤ rights attorney and spokeswoman for⁣ parental⁣ rights group ​Our Duty, argue that it is ⁤unconstitutional and infringes on parental rights. They believe that the bill removes the discretion of judges⁣ to consider the unique circumstances of each case and forces parents to affirm any kind of transition,⁢ regardless‌ of the child’s age or⁤ gender identity.

Support and⁤ Opposition

Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, who introduced the legislation, emphasized the importance of social support for‌ transgender, ⁤gender non-conforming, and intersex children. She shared her personal experience as a mother of a trans youth and highlighted the positive‍ impact of social support from friends and family.

However,‍ Assemblyman Bill Essayli questioned the logic behind imposing a ‍”blanket‌ policy” on family court judges ⁤to side with “gender-affirming” parents. He argued that this approach excludes ⁤the voices of non-consenting parents and infringes on ​parental ‌rights.

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of TransFamily ​Support Services, supported the bill, stating that it simply adds gender affirmation as‍ a factor to be considered in custody⁢ and visitation cases. She believes that affirming a child’s gender is in their​ best interest.

Ted ⁣Hudacko, a divorced father, shared his personal story of losing custody of his son due to hesitations about socially ⁢and medically ‍transitioning him. He expressed concerns about‌ his son’s mental health and the lack of exploration into the root causes of his ⁣transgender identity.

Conclusion

The passage of Assembly Bill 957 has sparked intense debate and divided opinions among lawmakers, parental rights groups, and organizations supporting the rights of ⁢the LGBTQ+ community. As the‍ bill awaits⁣ the governor’s decision, the future of family law in California hangs in the⁤ balance.