The California Assembly passed legislation requiring judges to consider whether a parent ‘affirms a child’s gender identity’ when making custody decisions.

Assembly Bill 957, which passed both chambers in the California State Legislature, reads:

Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation in contested proceedings and requires the court, for purposes of deciding custody, to determine the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including, among other things, the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3011 of the Family Code proposed by SB 599 to be operative only if this bill and SB 599 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.



SECTION 1. Section 3011 of the Family Code is amended to read:

3011. (a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:

(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.

California State Rep. Lori Wilson, who proposed the legislation, said “parents affirm their children.”

“Typically it happens when their gender identity expression matches their biological gender. But what happens is when it doesn’t, that’s when the affirmation starts to wane,” she continued.

“Our duty as parents is to affirm our children,” she added.


“This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What it actually means is that if you disagree with the other parent about sterilizing your child, you lose custody. Utter madness!” said Elon Musk.

“They’re going to legally kidnap children if their parents refuse to chop their body parts off. This is horrifying,” Gays Against Groomers replied.

“California has declared war on parents. If you don’t want your kids transitioned and/or stolen by the state then it’s time to move. I don’t care how hard it is. Make a plan and move. AB957 being passed today means you can have custody taken from you for not affirming your child no matter WHAT they identify as. This will be weaponized in ugly divorces to get custody. This will ruin lives,” said Robby Starbuck.

“California’s Assembly just approved the anti-parent custody bill AB 957—co-authored by childless LGBTQIA+ creep Scott Weiner—which requires judges to give preferential treatment to parents in custody battles who affirm a child’s ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender expression,'” Turning Point USA Founder and CEO Charlie Kirk noted.

“The bill already passed the California Senate and will now head to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk to be signed into law.”

The Associated Press reports:

California could soon require judges to consider whether a parent affirms their child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions under a bill that cleared the state Senate on Wednesday.

The vote was split almost entirely along party lines, with Democrats arguing the legislation would help to protect the well-being of LGBTQ+ children whose parents are going through a divorce. Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, said the bill was a proactive measure.

“This is about not having to get involved after a child has been beaten and had their arm broken, or after they’ve been kicked out,” Wiener said. “This is about trying to make sure that something terrible does not happen to them.”

Every Republican in the state Senate voted against the bill, with state Sen. Kelly Seyarto, who represents Murrieta in Southern California, arguing that lawmakers were interfering too much with how parents choose to raise their children.

“Inserting this into the mix is going to pit one parent against the other and make things worse,” Seyarto said.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.