What happens when parents disagree about a child’s gender identity and medical care?
Few issues in family law today are as emotionally charged — or as legally complex — as disputes over gender affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse children. When one parent supports a child’s social or medical transition and the other strongly opposes it, California courts must navigate a difficult intersection of:
- Parental rights
- Medical decision-making authority
- The child’s mental health and wellbeing
- State laws on gender affirming care
- Highly politicized national debates
When a child expresses a gender identity that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth, it can be a significant emotional journey for the entire family. If the parents are separated or divorced, this journey is often complicated by the legal structure of child custody. In California, a state generally affirming of LGBTQ+ rights, child custody disputes involving gender-affirming care present a complex legal and emotional landscape.
In California, the guiding principle remains the same: the best interests of the child.
But how courts interpret that standard in cases involving gender identity is evolving rapidly. This blog breaks down what parents need to know if gender-affirming care becomes a custody issue.
The Legal Foundation: “Best Interests of the Child”
California Family Law is centered on one, overriding principle: all custody and visitation orders must serve the health, safety, and welfare of the child. This is often referred to as the “best interests of the child” standard. In the context of a high-conflict decision like gender-affirming care, the court must meticulously weigh various factors to determine what course of action truly protects the child.
How Courts Determine “Best Interests”
The factors a California court considers in a custody dispute are broad, but several become hyper-relevant when the issue is gender affirmation:
- The Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Child: This is the primary consideration. It includes both physical and mental health. Medical and psychological experts often testify about the risks of denial of care (e.g., increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide among transgender youth) versus the risks of initiating care. California law has explicitly acknowledged the connection between a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity and the child’s health and safety.
- The Child’s Relationship with Each Parent: The court assesses which parent is more likely to foster a positive and stable environment for the child. When a child’s gender identity is central to their well-being, a parent’s refusal to acknowledge or support that identity can become a critical factor in determining which parent is better equipped to meet the child’s fundamental needs.
- The Child’s Wishes (Depending on Age and Maturity): While not the only factor, the court will consider the child’s preference, especially as they get older and demonstrate greater maturity and understanding of the decision’s implications.
Other Factors Courts Consider
- The child’s expressed identity
Older children’s views are given greater weight, especially in California, where children 14+ may participate in court proceedings. - Mental health professional input
Therapists, pediatricians, and gender-specialist clinicians provide critical testimony. - Stability and harm
Courts assess:- Whether denying affirmation may cause mental or emotional harm
- Whether interference disrupts the child’s well-being
- Whether affirmation is consistent across time and settings
- Parental behavior
Courts examine:- Does one parent affirm the child’s identity appropriately?
- Does the other parent reject, shame, or invalidate the child?
- Is either parent pressuring the child?
-
History of domestic violence or coercive control
A parent’s hostility toward the child’s identity can be considered emotional abuse or coercive control in extreme cases.
What the Court Does Not Do
- Courts do not order medical treatment.
- Courts do not rely on political views.
- Courts do not allow parents to block medically recommended care without evidence.
Instead, they determine which parent is better equipped to make medical decisions consistent with the child’s health and welfare.
California’s Pro-Affirmation Stance
California’s legislature has taken decisive steps to establish a public policy that views gender affirmation as central to a child’s health and safety. The state’s progressive legal environment significantly shapes the judicial approach to these disputes.
Legislative Influence: Affirmation as a Custody Factor
While no single law mandates a custody outcome, recent legislative efforts underscore the state’s prioritization of affirming environments. For instance, Assembly Bill 957, although ultimately vetoed by the Governor, highlighted a strong legislative intent to clarify that a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity should be considered as part of the child’s “health, safety, and welfare” in custody determinations. Even without the bill’s passage, the sentiment behind it reflects the prevailing judicial climate: a lack of affirmation can be seen as detrimental to the child’s mental and emotional health.
The Sanctuary State Aspect (SB 107)
California has further reinforced its commitment to protecting gender-affirming care through Senate Bill 107. This law establishes California as a “sanctuary state” for transgender youth. Its primary focus is on protecting families from out-of-state actions (such as arrest warrants or attempts to remove a child from a parent’s custody) related to a child seeking gender-affirming care.
While this law primarily addresses inter-state issues, it sends a clear message about California’s public policy: gender-affirming care is protected and supported. For a judge, this public policy context reinforces the notion that facilitating access to such care, when medically recommended, aligns with the child’s best interests.
What Happens When Parents Disagree About Gender Affirming Care?
These cases generally arise in one of two ways:
Scenario 1: One Parent Supports the Child’s Transition; the Other Opposes
This is the most common. The opposing parent may object on:
- Moral or religious grounds
- Concerns about long-term health effects
- Belief that the child is “too young” to know
- Fear of medical intervention
Scenario 2: One Parent Affirms a Social Transition, the Other Claims “Parental Alienation”
In some disputes, the opposing parent argues that the affirming parent is “forcing” a gender identity on the child — an allegation courts scrutinize carefully.
In both scenarios, the court must evaluate:
- The child’s needs
- Credible input from mental health and medical professionals
- Stability and safety in each home
- The parents’ ability to support the child emotionally
The Child’s Voice and the Role of Experts
The child’s experience is paramount in these cases. The court relies heavily on the testimony and recommendations of mental health professionals who have been treating the child.
Therapeutic and Medical Guidance
A key piece of evidence is typically a diagnosis and a recommended course of treatment, often based on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care. The mental health professional who has worked with the child is in the best position to:
- Assess the child’s persistence, consistency, and insistence in their gender identity.
- Evaluate the child’s maturity to participate in decision-making.
- Explain the level of psychological distress (gender dysphoria) the child is experiencing.
- Articulate the risks associated with both affirming the child and opposing or denying the affirmation.
The non-affirming parent may present their own experts, but the court’s decision will ultimately be a nuanced evaluation of all evidence against the backdrop of the child’s long-term health and stability.
The High Stakes of Non-Affirmation
While a parent’s non-affirmation of their child’s gender identity is not automatically considered child abuse or neglect, it can be seen as a significant failure to prioritize the child’s health and welfare.
When a court sees evidence that a parent’s opposition to medically necessary care is causing the child serious emotional harm—potentially elevating their risk for mental health crises—that parent’s ability to act in the “best interests of the child” may be questioned. This can lead to a modification of the custody order, granting the affirming parent sole legal custody for medical decisions, or, in extreme cases, limiting the non-affirming parent’s visitation rights if the court finds their actions detrimental to the child’s emotional well-being.
In summary, California courts are firmly directed to prioritize the child’s best interests. In custody disputes over gender-affirming care, this principle is increasingly interpreted through a lens that recognizes gender affirmation as a component of health and safety, tilting the legal authority toward the parent who is prepared to support the medically recommended course of action.
Minella Law Group Can Help
If you are facing a custody dispute involving gender identity or medical decision-making in California, the attorneys at Minella Law Group can help. We provide strategic, child-centered guidance in even the most complex and high-conflict cases. Contact us for a confidential consultation.
📞 Call Minella Law Group today at 619-289-7948 to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our family law specialists. We’ll listen to your concerns, assess the situation, and create a clear strategy tailored to your goals.
📝 Prefer email? Fill out our online contact form and a member of our legal team will get in touch with you promptly.
*Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance on your case, contact a licensed California family law attorney
