California Democrats have approved a bill granting custody judges the ability to consider ‘gender affirmation’ in their decisions.

Newsom to decide if ⁢’non-affirming’ parents can lose custody of their kids

California Democrats ‌this ‌week passed ⁣a bill ordering judges to ⁢consider gender affirmation as part ‍of ⁣a child’s health, safety,⁣ and welfare when deciding parental custody or⁣ visitation rights. The proposals now head to Democratic governor Gavin ⁢Newsom’s desk.

The bill, which the Assembly⁢ approved Friday by a 57-16 vote, ‌orders ⁣judges to favor parents who ‌”affirm” their children in the context ‌of custody disputes.

It intersects with another piece of legislation, which the ​Senate​ approved⁢ Thursday 40-0, instructs judges to consider parents’ affirmation of their child’s preferred identity when deciding visitation rights—including⁢ if the ⁤visits need to⁤ be supervised. The bill’s original intent was to protect children from‌ parents or guardians already flagged as dangerous.

Newsom would need to sign both bills⁢ for the new definition of a child’s‍ health, safety, and ⁤welfare ‍to be⁣ enshrined in ‍state family⁢ law. Neither proposal defines what “affirmation” means, making the judges responsible for ⁤deciding if ⁢it ⁢includes medical transition.

The custody⁣ bill, which prompted hundreds of parents from⁣ around the state to testify and ⁣rally in opposition, showcases California Democrats’ commitment to enshrining gender ideology into law, even if it divides ‌families. Supporters insist it ​is a ⁢narrow ⁤provision that won’t ‌remove custody⁣ from parents but only ensure ⁢that gender-confused kids are supported during a divorce or separation dispute—an argument that opponents don’t buy.

“The floodgates are open,” said Erin Friday, a ⁤San Francisco attorney and co-lead of Our Duty, a coalition of parents of gender-confused children. “For them to say this is limited to custody is just a lie.”

Friday, whose daughter was once gender-confused, said defining “gender affirmation” as ​part of a child’s health, safety, and welfare⁢ could⁣ open the door ​to outsiders suing for guardianship of kids should their parents oppose or ‍question⁢ their desire to transition to a new identity. ​They ⁢could do so by ‍claiming “probate guardianship”—the process whereby grandparents or even strangers can petition for custody of a ​child whose parent can’t ​take care of him or her.

Ted Hudacko, a Bay Area man who lost custody of‍ his son‌ to​ his ex-wife for refusing to support medically transitioning him ‌to a⁣ girl, expressed ⁢shock that the‌ proposals passed and ⁣said Democrats ⁣are ignoring evidence of the physical and mental ⁤harms⁢ of​ transitioning children.

“I’m disheartened,”​ Hudacko said. “This is just going to bring terrible misery to so many families.”

Assemblywoman⁤ Lori Wilson (D.), who coauthored the ​custody bill with Sen. Scott Wiener (D.), said that a child’s welfare depends on “family acceptance and social support.”

“We are part of that social​ support,” she said before the floor vote on Friday.