California’s Judiciary Committee heard a proposed bill this week which would include instances when a parent is opposed to a child’s “gender transition” in laws meant to protect children from other states who are neglected, abandoned, or abused.
S.B. 107 proposes to add children who have been “unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care” to the cases in which California courts may intervene if a parent is refusing to return a child to another state after visitation.
As National Review reported, California usually does not intervene in such matters, but courts are permitted emergency jurisdiction in the case of neglect or abuse.
“Gender-affirming” care would now be included under the proposed bill:
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3424 or by any other law of this state, if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this part because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless one of the following are true:…
In making a determination under this section, a court shall not consider as a factor weighing against the petitioner any taking of the child, or retention of the child after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of physical custody, from the person who has legal if there is evidence that the taking or retention of the child was a result of domestic violence against the petitioner…, or for the purposes of obtaining gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care for the child and the law or policy of the other state limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care for their child.
The state would also refuse to enforce other states’ laws that would authorize a state agency to remove a child from a parent’s care if they are giving the child “gender-affirming health care.”
Out-of-state warrants issued “based on violating another state’s law against receiving or allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care” would be the lowest priority for law enforcement, and California’s law enforcement agencies would not participate in the arrest of individuals in these cases.
Nor would California’s law enforcement agencies be allowed to cooperate with individuals or out-of-state entities regarding “the provision of lawful gender-affirming health care performed in this state.”
The National Review notes that this would likely include parents.
If you appreciate the work we are doing for faith, family, and freedom, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!