California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 957 Friday, which would have required judges to consider whether a parent ‘affirms a child’s gender identity’ when making custody decisions.

AB 957 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.

cont.

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.

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

“I am returning Assembly Bill 957 without my signature. This legislation would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding, to consider, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression,” Newsom wrote in a statement.

“I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office. That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply. Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities,” he added.

“Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child’s health, safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these proceedings, including the parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill,” he concluded.

Image

Image

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.