California’s Anti-Family Extremism

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s surprise veto of a bill late last week that would have effectively denied custody rights to parents who refuse to “affirm” their child’s “gender identity” seemed to be a rare moment of sanity amid California’s all-out war on parental rights and biological reality. But just hours later, Newsom signed a slate of other legislation that reinforced the Golden State’s reputation as the most anti-family state in the country.

AB 957, the controversial bill rejected by Newsom, would have required judges to consider whether or not a parent supports their child’s “gender identity or gender expression” when deciding custody battles. Put another way, if a parent refuses to endorse his or her son’s belief that he is a girl (or vice versa) California courts would be required to consider that alongside other factors like physical or emotional abuse in determining whether or not that parent receives custody rights.

In rejecting the bill, Newsom argued that the law would have created a new legal standard “in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic.” In other words, Newsom seemed to understand that such a law would stand no chance of holding up in court.

LBGTQ groups were predictably outraged at Newsom’s seeming betrayal. Democrat State Sen. Scott Wiener, a principal author of AB 957 as well as several other radical anti-parents’ rights bills, called Newsom’s veto a “tragedy.” The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, meanwhile, said the failure of the bill was a “missed opportunity to remind the nation that California is a safe haven for transgender and nonbinary children.”

However, the left-wing activists looking to foist radical gender ideology on California kids over parental objections need not have worried about Newsom’s loyalty. Just hours after vetoing AB 957, the governor signed AB 5, which sets deadlines for every school teacher and staff member to undergo “LGBTQ cultural competency training”; SB 760, which requires all schools to have at least one all-gender restroom; AB 223, which allows minors to confidentially file to legally change their gender without parental consent; and SB 857, which creates an “advisory task force to identify the statewide needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and plus pupils and to make recommendations to assist in implementing supportive policies and initiatives to address LGBTQ+ pupil education and well-being.”

Each of these bills would have been one of the most extreme pieces of legislation ever passed in virtually any other state. But in California, they are just the latest examples of Democrat efforts to replace parents with the state, using radical gender ideology as a wedge to drive apart families.

One of the most egregious anti-family laws passed recently in California was SB 107, which Newsom signed last October. The law – also sponsored by Wiener –was billed by proponents as “protect[ing] trans kids and their families if they flee to California from Alabama, Texas, Idaho or any other state criminalizing the parents of trans kids for allowing them to receive gender-affirming care.”

The law establishes California as a “sanctuary state” for confused youth who believe they are transgender by allowing authorities to take “temporary emergency jurisdiction” of trans-identifying minors. If a young girl believes she is a boy but her parents refuse to sign off on hormone treatments or surgery, that girl can now run away to California with the hopes of the state taking custody of her and providing her the “affirming” care she seeks.

This California law isn’t just morally egregious, it’s also likely illegal. The state is being sued over their “child transgender sanctuary” status by Our Watch, a California parental rights nonprofit. The lawsuit alleges that SB 107 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause because it was passed in direct hostility to the laws of conservative states like Alabama and Texas.

But despite the lawsuits, the parade of anti-parent laws emanating from the California legislature shows no signs of slowing. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed AB 665, which allows children 12 and older to opt into government-run shelters without parental consent. Under AB 665, which Newsom has yet to make a decision on, California could legally separate children from their parents with no proof of abuse or wrongdoing of any kind.

It’s not just Democrat legislators who have launched a crusade against parents in the Golden State. In August, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued a local school district over its “new policy requiring schools to notify parents if their children change their gender identification or pronouns.” In his suit, Bonta refers to the policy as a “forced outing policy” which violates “the privacy rights of LGBTQ+ students.”

But wherever the left hopes to erode parental rights, parents are fighting back. Last month, Spreckels Union School District near San Jose was forced to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit with parents “over administrators’ alleged support for a student’s gender transition, which purportedly unfolded without the knowledge of the child’s mother.”

The suit was filed in June 2022 by Jessica Konen, a mother whose daughter was “secretly convinced” that she was transgender by school staff. Konen claimed the district violated her rights under the 14th Amendment to direct her child’s upbringing, perhaps outlining a path for future parental lawsuits against schools and government policies.

As courageous as parents have been in fighting back against California’s anti-family extremism, however, lasting change will require a major upheaval in Sacramento that for now seems very unlikely.

Katharine “Katie” Sullivan was an Acting Assistant Attorney General and a senior advisor to the White House Domestic Policy Council under President Trump. She previously served 11 years as a state trial court judge in Colorado.