Appearance Alert: on The Pro America Report
Appearance Alert: on The Pro America Report
We talk about AB 957 from California.
I was back on with Ed Martin on the Pro America Report.
This time Ed and I discussed AB 957, a bill making its way through the California legislature.
The key portion we discussed states, “This bill would require the court to strongly consider that affirming the minor's gender identity is in the best interest of the child if a nonconsenting parent objects to a name change to conform to the minor's gender identity.”
It certainly sounds like from the language that this bill will make a parent not going along with a child’s new gender to be unfit.
The bill is co-sponsored by two Democrats: Lori Wilson and Scott Wiener.
I sent each a list of questions and Assemblywoman Wilson’s staff gave detailed responses.
Let’s go over the questions and answers.
Q1: Is it fair to say that this bill finds that the parent not going along with a child's change in gender is found to be less fit? If so, this seems dangerous.
Below is part of the answer.
This statement is misleading.
The following is from the Bill Analysis:
“Contrary to the claims of some opponents, the bill does not require the court to side with the consenting parent; it may place a thumb on the scale in favor of the consenting parent, but that is true of any number of factors that the court considers in determining the best interests of the child.
Assemblywoman Wilson is right; nowhere in this bill is the word shall, which would require judges to find that affirming a child’s is in their best interest: rather the bill “strongly encourages” this finding.
I said this to Ed on the show. “The language is vague enough. So, it’s not saying 100%. It requires ‘to strongly consider’ so it’s not a shall. It’s very close to shall.”
As I continued, the bill also says that it will be strongly considered that affirming the child’s new gender is “in the best interest of the child.” That is the governing legal term for child custody.
While the bill does not require a judge to make this determination, it does strongly encourage it.
Assemblywoman Wilson noted that many factors go into determining the best interest of the child. Here is the rest of her answer.
Existing law requires the judge to consider several factors which prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the child. This bill would add a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as an additional factor weighing in favor of the child’s health, safety, and welfare.
Requires the court, when making a determination of the best interest of the child in a child custody proceeding, to consider, among other factors it deems relevant, all of the following:
The health, safety, and welfare of the child.
A history of abuse by either parent, or by that parent’s current spouse or cohabitants, as specified.
The nature and amount of contact with both parents, as specified.
The habitual substance abuse by either parent. (Family Code Section 3011 (a).)”
All of this is true, but this bill will take a position on affirming gender. It will tell judges that the legislature believes that affirming a child’s new gender is in their best interest.
Q2: Why do you think a parent must go along with a child believing they should be another gender or be deemed unfit?
Here is the Assemblywoman’s response.
A parent would not be deemed unfit based on this single factor alone. Generally speaking, we believe providing affirmation and support to transgender youth will be in the best interest of the child. There are many factors for a court to consider, and we believe this should be one of those factors.
California has laid down the gauntlet. Affirming a child’s new gender is in their best interest, according to its lawmakers. I have previously talked about the Younger case from Texas. In that case, the mom, who was pushing the child to be a different gender, won sole custody, however- at least outwardly- that was independent of her decision to push her son to become a girl. In California, if this bill passes, someone like Mr. Younger would likely be viewed as not doing in the best interest of his child if they don’t go along.
Q3: Isn't this taking away a parent's decision and turning this decision to the court? What else have I missed?
Here is their response.
From Bill Analysis:
“This bill touches upon a controversial and complex topic. However, the bill does not mark a dramatic shift in family law. Courts will continue to give paramount importance to the best interest of the child.
The bill does not uniquely interfere with parental rights, for when parents disagree in a legal matter, the court necessarily sides with one parent over the other. In a perfect world, parents would agree on such matters; but in the real world, they do not. The court must therefore make a decision when parents disagree.”
In California, the court will likely side with the parent pushing the child to become a different gender.
Postscript
Find the previous articles in this series: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3., Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, and Article 9.
For more articles like this on corruption in California family courts check out the fundraiser.
