Californication: California Is Set to Pass Laws Allowing for State-Sanctioned Kidnapping and Required 'Affirmation' of Gender-Confused Kids

AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

My home state of California is Bizzarroland, totally over the edge. It was bad enough, but now it has crossed the Rubicon and blown up the bridge and burned the boats. The Golden State is set to take away parental rights and create a police state where a court and judge must (not may) affirm a child’s chosen made-up gender “identity.” But that same California requires permission for a minor to get a tattoo. Make sense of it. I can’t. Soon in California, if the Democrat super-majority gets its way, confused children can be taken from a parent(s) and chemically castrated and mutilated at the minor’s request. Think that sounds far-fetched? It isn’t.


Assemblymember named Wendy Carrillo is the author of AB 665. Eight days ago, during open debate and discussion on her bill, she made the gallery erupt in spontaneous laughter when she said:

We would never move policy that seeks to separate children from their parents.

The AP and USA Today are all in for the left, so, of course, they published articles claiming the arguments against are overblown. No, they are not.

 AB 665 will alter the legal landscape and specific language. What does AB 665 say and ultimately do? It’s the state of California amending the Family Law Code to legally kidnap confused children.

Jennifer Kennedy, a California attorney and children’s advocate, told me in an email:

The amendment has added to the state’s standard of what constitutes parental responsibility for child welfare, requiring that parents must be affirming of a child’s gender identity if they are to be judged fit for providing for “the health, safety, and welfare of the child,” in a court of law.

AB 665 amends Family Code 6924. Specifically, it amends a 1979 law that allows a minor 12+ to self-consent to mental health counseling OR residential shelter, without parental consent (or even confirmed notice), but ONLY if “danger guardrails” are satisfied, namely that the child is a danger to self or others (suicidality or danger to others), OR the child faces danger at home (abuse, incest). This (old) law ensures that parents’ custody is not invaded, and their child not removed from their physical custody, without exigent, dangerous circumstances.


What is AB 665 doing linguistically? It is striking out those guardrails. A 12-year-old who on a given Tuesday has gender confusion can self-consent to outpatient counseling AND in-patient “residential shelter.” That’s right – the 12-year-old child can be housed in a state-sponsored group home while they are chemically castrated and physically mutilated. But rest assured, the state will provide counseling.

Wendy Carrillo, the bill’s author, and her co-sponsor, Sen. Scott Wiener (the guy who underdresses for Gay Pride parades), are super excited about the bill. Both claim AB 665 doesn’t “really” change the law. But it really, absolutely does.

What is the status of AB 665? It’s on the edge of becoming law.

California also has AB 957 on the docket. AB 957 should be titled: “Affirm” Your Child or Say Goodbye To Your Kid” Law.

Again Kennedy told me what she sees it doing:

AB 957 amends Family Code 3011. It inserts language to EQUATE a parent’s “affirmation of child gender transition” to a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.” This will require family court judges to favor an “affirming” parent, and open the door for a vindictive ex to argue that the non-affirming parent isn’t “safe” or taking care of the child’s “health.” We firmly believe this will result in parents being charged with abuse, or “emotional abuse,” for the crime of not using a name or pronoun. That’s exactly what happened to Abigail Martinez; that was her “crime” that led to the removal of her child.

Note: The first version of this bill called for “a parent’s affirmation of transition” to be specifically enumerated along with the few other unique factors identified in Section 3011 that are to be considered by a family court judge when making custody decisions. Those enumerated factors in Fam Code 3011 are negatives: drug/alcohol use; lack of time spent with child; abuse of child or family members. The factors are to be considered when arriving at a decision in the best interests of the child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

The second version added a comma, indicating that a judge must favor the parent who affirms a child “…, because affirmation of a child’s gender identity is in the best interest of the child.” This sought to invade judicial discretion and establish, as a matter of law, that only affirmation is in the best interest of a child.

The current version now elevates “affirmation” beyond just one factor to consider, and INCLUDES it as part of the trinity of the “health, safety, and welfare” of a child! AB 957 will shackle judges (those who aren’t already captured) and will prevent families from arguing against transition, and will result in loving and fit parents losing custody. AB 957 is also blatant religious discrimination; no parent who believes in God’s perfect design of man and woman, and believes that no child is “born in the wrong body,” can be directed to violate their faith and affirm.


This is the insanity of Californication. California is governed by Democrats, and they are running amok because they can. Unfortunately, I live here.

And Gov. HairGel wants to be president.

Buckle up, America—we are in for a bumpy ride.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos