BILL NUMBER: S996

SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the custody
of children

 
PURPOSE OF BILL:

To prevent a judge from (1) considering a party's sex, sexual orien-
tation, gender identity or gender expression when determining the best
interest of the child and (2) prohibiting a party from undergoing gender
reassignment

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Section 240 of the domestic relations law is amended by adding a new
Paragraph k to subdivision 1 which states that the court shall not
consider a party's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression when determining the best interest of the child nor shall a
              

judge prohibit a party from undergoing gender reassignment

 
JUSTIFICATION:

A party's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression
is not relevant when determining the best interest of the child.

Furthermore, sex reassignment or gender-affirming surgery is a term for
the surgical procedures by which a person's physical appearance and
function of their existing sexual characteristics are changed to that of
the other sex. It is part of a treatment for gender dysphoria in trans-
gender people. In most jurisdictions, people interested in undergoing
sex reassignment are required to undergo a minimum duration of psycho-
logical evaluation. It is only after one receives psychological approval
that they can go ahead with the surgery.

Unfortunately, cases have been brought to our attention where a judge
has, in a divorce proceeding, categorically denied a person's right to
pursue this medically approved procedure if they wished to get custody
of a child. Rulings such as this are shortsighted and bigoted. Reports
have shown that young children, relative to older people, are better
able to cope with and digest events such as this.

This legislation seeks to ensure that no parent's custody rights are
held hostage to an uneducated understanding of this issue.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

S.0432-A of 2019-2020 (Hoylman): Died in Judiciary

A.0861-A of 2019-2020 (Simotas): Died in Rules

S.0097 of 2017-2018 (Hoylman): Died in Children and Families

A.11298 of 2018-2019 (Simotas): Died in Judiciary

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.