An amended bill in California, AB 957, which requires judges to take into account parents’ affirmation of a child’s asserted gender identity in custody disputes, has raised concerns of child abuse allegations against “non-affirming” parents. The bill, already passed in the state assembly, views a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity as integral to the child’s health, safety, and welfare. The modification to Section 3011 of the California Family Code would require judges to regard a parent’s affirmation or non-affirmation of a child’s transgender identity as a factor in custody disagreements, raising fears that non-affirmation could be perceived as abuse.
This concern is not without precedent, as a similar situation in Canada led to a father’s imprisonment and fine for refusing to affirm his daughter’s alleged male identity. Governor Gavin Newsom, last year, signed a bill allowing California courts to gain custody jurisdiction over children brought to California from other states for gender interventions. The bill was proposed by Assembly Member Lori Wilson, whose child identifies as transgender, and Senator Scott Wiener, known for his advocacy of issues like drag queen story hours and protections for certain statutory rapists.
Wilson and Wiener argue for affirming gender identity, even in young children. Wilson states that not affirming a child’s expressed gender identity equates to rejecting the child. Nicole Peterson, founder of advocacy group Facts Law Truth Justice, warns that AB 957 could lead to child abuse charges against parents unwilling or unprepared to affirm their child’s newly asserted identity.
Wilson’s spokesperson has defended the bill, arguing that it pertains to family law rather than criminal law. The bill merely adds another factor to be considered in custody disputes and doesn’t prioritize gender affirmation over other considerations. Despite this reassurance, Erin Friday, a San Francisco attorney, contends that the bill could easily be interpreted to categorize non-affirmation as abuse, “compromising the child’s health, safety, and welfare”.
This legislation comes in an already fraught context for parents contesting their children’s transition. A notable example is Ted Hudacko, who lost a bitter legal battle over his son’s transition, resulting in limited visitation rights and a requirement to cover his son’s transitioning medical bills. The future of AB 957 remains uncertain, with its next review slated for June 13 by the state senate judiciary committee.