Optimizing Custody Hearings: The Impact of Gov. Newsom’s Veto on Considering Child’s Gender Identity

In a recent development, Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 957, a significant proposal aimed at reshaping the way judges handle custody disputes. The bill sought to ensure that parents’ support for their child’s gender identity would be a critical factor in the decision-making process, sparking a contentious debate on both sides of the aisle.

Understanding Assembly Bill 957

Assembly Bill 957, if passed, would have brought about substantial changes to California’s legal landscape. It proposed that judges, when determining custody or visitation rights in custody battles, take into account a parent’s affirmation of their child’s gender identity or expression. This proposition was hailed by advocates for LGBTQ+ rights as a crucial step towards safeguarding the interests of transgender Californians.

Newsom’s Perspective and the Veto

In his message accompanying the veto, Governor Newsom acknowledged the noble intentions behind the bill and expressed his deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender individuals. However, he raised concerns about the potential pitfalls of the executive and legislative branches prescribing specific legal standards for the judicial branch. Newsom emphasized the risk that such an approach might inadvertently undermine the civil rights of other vulnerable communities.

Newsom argued that existing laws already require courts to consider a child’s health, safety, and welfare when making decisions about their best interests in these proceedings. His veto highlighted the need for caution when implementing policies that could have far-reaching consequences.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson’s Disappointment

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, the bill’s sponsor, expressed her disappointment with Newsom’s veto. She underscored the urgency of providing a voice for the transgender community, particularly in the family court system. Wilson asserted that a non-affirming parent could adversely affect the mental health and well-being of a child.

Senator Scott Wiener’s Critique

State Senator Scott Wiener, a principal co-author of the bill, described Newsom’s veto as a “tragedy” and highlighted the stark contrast between this decision and Newsom’s previous advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community. Wiener defended the bill as a modest and commonsense guideline for judges, asserting that legislators have a responsibility to set clear standards for them to follow.

Mixed Reactions from Lawmakers

The bill’s fate has sparked polarized reactions among lawmakers. While some, like Assemblymember Bill Essayli, celebrated the veto as the “right call,” others lamented the missed opportunity to advance LGBTQ+ rights in the family court system.

Clarifying Misconceptions

One of the major points of contention surrounding the bill was the misconception that it would force parents to make irreversible decisions regarding their child’s gender identity. However, the text of the bill did not specify that a child needed to be on puberty blockers or have undergone surgery for their parents’ affirmation. It emphasized that affirmation could take various forms, uniquely tailored to promote the child’s overall health and well-being.

The Bill’s Path Forward

With the bill’s veto by Governor Newsom, it now returns to the California Legislature. To override the veto, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers would be required. Notably, the legislation had initially passed the Assembly and Senate by margins exceeding this threshold.

Additional Veto on Assembly Bill 1306

In a separate development on the same day, Governor Newsom also vetoed Assembly Bill 1306. This bill aimed to prohibit the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from providing information about the release of incarcerated noncitizens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Newsom’s veto message emphasized his belief in the current law’s balance in limiting interactions between state and federal agencies to foster community trust. He did, however, acknowledge the need for improvements in this process, outlining plans for the CDCR to limit communication with ICE to specific circumstances.

Governor Newsom’s veto of Assembly Bill 957 has ignited passionate debates about the role of a child’s gender identity in custody hearings. While the bill’s fate remains uncertain, its impact on the ongoing dialogue surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and the family court system is undeniable