Do you think parents can make the best decisions for their children or should it be an “intern” or “trainee” at a government-funded agency?
A new law recently passed by California Democrats undermines parental rights and gives therapists, “interns” and “trainees” at welfare agencies the power to take away children from their parents without due process.
AB 665, introduced by Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles), allows the removal of children age 12+ from their parents’ home without a court order. Specifically, the bill allows these children to agree to mental health treatment or counseling, as well as to be rehomed at a residential shelter, without parental consent.
Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California, says the bill is “dangerous” and “illegal.”
“This bill effectively takes children away from their parents if they aren’t ‘woke’ enough — there’s going to be a lot of federal civil rights lawsuits because of the lack of due process here in removing these children from homes and attacking parents’ rights,” explained DeMaio.
“The worst part is that the bill permits even counselors and interns to make and facilitate decisions to allow the state to take these kids away from their parents,” he continued.
DeMaio points out that AB 665 would also allow “interns” and “trainees” to make the decision to remove a child from their parent’s homes. Specific language in AB 665 states that: “Existing law defines professional person for these purposes to include, among other things, a mental health professional, a marriage and family therapist, a licensed educational psychologist, a clinical psychologist, the chief administrator of an agency, and a licensed professional clinical counselor, as defined. This bill would add a registered psychologist, a registered psychological assistant, a psychological trainee, an associate clinical social worker, a social work intern, a clinical counselor trainee working under the supervision of a licensed professional, and a board-certified psychiatrist to the definition of professional person for these purposes."
Bill proponents argue that the bill is a way to help children escape abusive situations, which they define as including parents or guardians that do not support “gender-affirming” treatments, but DeMaio says the claim is ridiculous and that there are already plenty of mechanisms and reporting resources for abuse.
Worse, the bill specifically eliminates existing state statutory language that requires a credible finding of abuse, neglect or danger of harm to authorize the removal of a child.
DeMaio points to the specific language in the bill that would eliminate the need to justify the removal of the child on the basis of harm or abuse.
Language in the new law: “(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if the minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services.”
Existing state law: "(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. (2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse."
“This bill is just another step in the Left’s ‘anti-parent’ agenda,” said DeMaio.
“Liberal Sacramento politicians are attacking parents’ rights every day by encouraging students to explore inappropriate topics without parental consent, keeping secrets from parents, silencing parents at school board meetings, and enacting laws like this that allow removal of children from parents who aren’t woke enough,’” he continued.
DeMaio says that Reform California analysis has found that people from all parties and demographics are outraged at AB 665, and particularly Latino families.
“Latino families are generally very family-focused and tight-knit, and we are seeing that they are reacting very strongly to attacks on their children and rights as parents,” explained DeMaio.
“This offers a great opportunity for Republican reformers to make inroads with the Latino community and shift the electoral game in California in 2024 — if they play their cards right,” continued DeMaio.
DeMaio says that AB 665 is so bad that it could cost Sacramento politicians their seats in 2024 — especially if it is turning off pro-family Latino voters. That’s why Reform California is leading the fight to flip key seats in 2024 and targeting politicians who support AB 665 by making it a campaign issue.
Reform California will also release its “Plain English” voter guide closer to the 2024 California Primary Election.