Newsom rejects California bill favoring ‘gender-affirming’ parents in custody disputes.
California Governor Vetoes Bill Favoring “Gender-Affirming” Parents in Child Custody Disputes
California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill on September 22 that aimed to give preference to “gender-affirming” parents in child custody disputes. The bill, known as Assembly Bill 957, proposed that judges consider parents who affirm their child’s transgender identity as acting in the best interest of the child’s health, safety, and welfare.
The bill had passed through the state Legislature earlier in the month and was awaiting the governor’s approval. However, in a veto statement released on Friday evening, Governor Newsom expressed his reservations about the legislation. While he appreciated the intention behind it and shared a passion for advancing the rights of transgender Californians, he cautioned against the Executive and Legislative branches dictating legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply.
Despite the veto, Governor Newsom emphasized that judges are still required to consider a child’s well-being regarding their gender identity in custody disputes, regardless of the bill’s status.
Related Stories
- California Bill Requiring Judges to Favor ‘Gender-Affirming’ Parents in Child Custody Battles Sent to Newsom’s Desk
- Lawmaker Tells Californians to ‘Flee’ State Over Bill Favoring ’Gender-Affirming’ Parents in Child Custody Disputes
The veto disappointed Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, the bill’s author, who had hoped to give transgender and gender-diverse children a voice in the family court system. Wilson expressed her disagreement with the governor’s decision, emphasizing the potential negative impact on the mental health and well-being of these children.
On the other hand, groups opposing the bill applauded Governor Newsom’s veto, stating that it protects the rights of children under existing health, welfare, and safety codes.
Opponents of the bill, such as civil rights attorney Jennifer Kennedy, argued that it would limit judges’ discretion in considering the facts of each individual child custody dispute. Kennedy claimed that the legislation would effectively force judges to always favor gender-affirming parents, potentially violating constitutional principles.
Overall, while the bill did not become law, the debate surrounding the rights of transgender children and the role of the judiciary in custody disputes continues.
Brad Jones contributed to this report.
How did Governor Newsom express his support for transgender rights while discussing child custody disputes in his veto statement?
Ed his commitment to supporting transgender rights and acknowledged the importance of affirming parents in the well-being of transgender children. However, he believed that it was not appropriate for the Legislature to determine how judges should consider gender identity in child custody disputes.
Governor Newsom’s veto statement stated, “The government should not be in the business of determining parental fitness or awarding custody based on an individual’s gender identity alone. The Judicial branch exists to impartially weigh the facts and circumstances of each case and make decisions in the best interest of the child.”
The bill had received support from LGBTQ+ rights groups and advocacy organizations, who argued that recognizing and supporting “gender-affirming” parents would contribute to the overall welfare and mental health of transgender children. They believed that such a legal provision would ensure that the child’s needs were met and that their identity was respected.
However, opponents of the bill raised concerns about potential infringements on parental rights, arguing that it could lead to unfair biases in custody decisions. Some critics argued that the bill could prioritize a parent’s support for a child’s transgender identity over other important aspects, such as stability, financial security, and overall parenting ability.
In his statement, Governor Newsom acknowledged the need for a comprehensive approach to improving child custody laws and protecting the rights of transgender individuals. He recommended a thorough examination of existing laws and regulations to ensure their alignment with evolving societal norms and scientific research on gender identity. He also encouraged further dialogue between the LGBTQ+ community, child welfare experts, and legal professionals to find common ground and develop equitable solutions.
The veto of Assembly Bill 957 highlights the delicate balance that policymakers face when addressing issues related to gender identity and parental rights. The bill sought to provide protection and recognition to transgender parents and their children, but concerns over potential biases and the role of the Judiciary ultimately led to its veto.
As the conversation surrounding transgender rights and child custody continues, it is crucial for policymakers, legal professionals, and advocates to work together to create a framework that promotes the well-being of all children involved while respecting the rights and identities of transgender individuals. Through ongoing dialogue and collaboration, California and other states can develop laws and regulations that strike an appropriate balance and ensure fair and just outcomes in custody disputes involving transgender children and their parents.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...