If AB 957 becomes law, parents of gender confused children will be forced to choose their child, or their faith; with a slippery slope that ultimately will broaden the law beyond child custody cases to all children.
Point 1:
AB 957 is based on the false premise that a parent who does not agree with their child’s gender fluidity cannot be a caring, loving and supportive parent. AB 957 will not be limited to just parents. Grandparents will be the next group under attack, and then relatives of parents and then anyone who comes in contact with the child that has a nexus to the non-affirming parent. When non-affirming is made equal to child abuse, there will be a wide net cast with a multitude of foreseeable negative consequences.
Point 2
Issues related to Health, Safety and Welfare in the family law courts have historically focused on anti-social behavior (e.g.: neglect, abuse, alcohol and drug use, etc.) in child custody cases. AB 957 changes that by equating sincerely held values and beliefs to behavior. A values and beliefs-based parental disqualification raises serious Constitutional questions. If AB 957 becomes law, parents of gender confused children will be forced to choose their child, or their faith; with a slippery slope that ultimately will broaden the law beyond child custody cases to all children.
Point 3:
AB 957 undermines California’s family law public policy that the mother and father are equally entitled to custody of the child. Family Code Section 3010 (a) holds, “The mother of an unemancipated minor child and the father, if presumed to be the father under Section 7611, are equally entitled to the custody of the child. (b) If one parent is dead, is unable or refuses to take custody, or has abandoned the child, the other parent is entitled to custody of the child. AB 957 eviscerates that shared equality for either parent based upon the thoughts of one parent, not the behavior. Instructing the courts to reject a non-affirming parent over having the parent involved in the child’s life conflicts with the California family law public policy that parents should be involved in their child’s life.
Point 4:
The transgender community has successfully fought hard to codify California public policy and family code statute ensuring 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.” Family Law Code Section 3011 (b) and 3020 (d). Now the transgender community seeks to utilize this non-discriminatory, defensive public policy as a discriminatory sword to attack parents who do not affirm the gender identity confusion of their elementary age child by ordering the courts to favor the affirming parent over the non-affirming parent. Instructing the courts to reject a non-affirming parent over having the parent involved in the child’s life has never occurred before in California family law.
Point 5:
AB 957 cruelly targets custody cases involving young children attempting to favor one parent over another in a child rearing dispute. One parent may exploit the proposed statute based on personal knowledge from the marital relationship that the other parent will not affirm the gender identify conflict in the child. Child custody cases are known to get devious and mean-spirited, this bill will weaponize the family law courts even more. In these custody proceedings the courts do give credence to the desires and opinions of teenagers who will typically speak for their parental preference, thus showing there are existing outlets for concerned teenagers and AB 957 is not the panacea which it represents itself.
Point 6:
Family Code Section 3011 contains a rebuttable presumption against awarding child custody to parents who have proven substance abuse problems. AB 957 attempts to replicate this powerful tool by adding “non-affirming parent” to a similar category or level as substance abuse. The courts will then state they are obligated to follow the legislature’s intent to treat non-affirming parents the same as substance abuse parents who negatively impact the safety and well-being of children.
Point 7:
The Sen Jud Report presents a false narrative in the very first sentence by stating that the bill “clarifies”, implying it clarifies existing law. This false narrative attempts to distract the truth that SB 957 proposes and advocates a dramatic change to the Family Code. The Sen Jud Report goes on to understate the power of AB 957 by stating that the “bill does not compel the court to come to a particular outcome…”. That’s the old logical fallacy trick to distort an issue and then provide the conclusion. The Sen Jud Report contains many other implicitly biased statements.
Point 8:
Not satisfied with family court custody cases, the proponents of this legislation will exploit its precedent to create more laws to force non-affirming parents of all gender fluid children to either affirm the gender confusion, or risk losing their child to the state.