California seeks to allow kids to 'divorce' their parents without cause

California is at it again. It is on its way to passing another bill that empowers children to choose their own families.  

Assembly Bill 1967 is moving through the California Legislature with barely a ripple of public attention. The bill, authored by LGBTQ rights activist-turned-Assemblymember Rick Zbur, would allow children of any age to initiate state dependency proceedings against their own parents. The parents will not even know this has happened until the die is already cast.

The bill allows any minor residing in any residential facility to file a legal application against their parents, without cause or evidence of harm.

Residential facilities include drug rehabilitation programs, boarding schools, wilderness therapy programs, faith-based residential programs, and runaway shelters It does not matter whether the facility is safe and an appropriate placement chosen by the parents. The child can petition the court to strip the parents of custodial authority and substitute county child welfare control or foster placement. The application need not be corroborated by any adult and need not be served on the parents. The child’s statement alone is sufficient to trigger a mandatory assessment of the parents’ home. This assessment can occur without the parents’ knowledge.

The investigation includes a social worker assessment of the parents’ home. The use of the word “assessment” instead of “investigation” is legally significant: an assessment carries no requirement of a physical home visit and can be completed entirely on the basis of the child’s statements alone, without the parents ever being contacted.

The application requires an allegation of physical or emotional abuse, but emotional abuse is a nebulous category that can be stretched to cover a wide range of parental decisions with which the child disagrees. A parent who refuses to call a daughter a boy may qualify. A child in a pro-reality therapeutic setting can use AB 1967 to move herself into a home or institution that will affirm her transgender identity. California welfare laws require children under state control to be “affirmed” in their gender identity, housed in accordance with their identity and not sex, and given access to sex-rejecting interventions.  

This bill is not designed only to create a pathway for gender dysphoric children to opt out of their families and into a facility that will affirm their transgender identity. It also applies to any child who simply disagrees with a parent’s therapeutic or educational choice. A child who does not like the rules at his drug rehabilitation program can file a dependency application to extricate himself from his parents’ control and dictate his own treatment plan.

Children in state custody are required to “be placed in the least restrictive setting possible, regardless of age, physical health, mental health. California law permits 12-year-olds and older to “be involved in the development of their own case plan, including placement decisions.” A child who objects to the restrictive setting his parents chose for him can use AB 1967 to override that decision entirely. 

Even if the social worker determines that the parents are not abusive or neglectful and declines to file a petition, the child’s attorney can demand mandatory court review. The court must rule within 14 days on whether to order the petition filed, and if it does, the next court day, a detention hearing must be held. At no point in this entire process has any notice been required to reach the parents. Even if a parent receives notice shortly before the detention hearing, the opportunity to mount a meaningful defense is illusory: there is no time to retain an attorney, gather evidence, or respond to allegations built entirely on the child’s unverified statements.

Government control over children is only one purpose of AB 1967. The second is financial. Once the county takes custody of the child, it is almost certain that he will be removed from the parent-directed residential facility. Detained children must be placed in an AFDC-FC-eligible nonprofit facility, foster care home, or institution. This requirement creates a direct financial incentive for nonprofits and their affiliated attorneys to facilitate the child’s transfer into county-approved placements.

A nonprofit can receive up to $17,616 per month in state and federal funding for a short-term residential therapeutic placement. Meanwhile, the parent faces a long, expensive legal battle to regain custody. Under California law, as many as 60 days can pass before the parents have a meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations at a disposition hearing, and up to 18 months before final resolution of the dependency. Throughout that period, the county controls where the child lives, what therapeutic program he receives, and how often his parents may see him.

Californian’s disdain for the parent-child relationship really knows no bounds. California has spent years systematically dismantling the legal protections that allowed parents to raise their children without interference of the government. California wants to turn children into an autonomous creatures with veto power over their parents’ decisions. California (and many other liberals states) are careening towards a society where the only role of the parent is to birth the child, and the state will take it from there.