California is pushing a bill that would allow children to "Divorce" their parents.
But why?
Let's start with the bill, before we go back into recent history:
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.
If the bill becomes law, it'll let any minor in a "residential facility" - put a pin in that term, we're going to come back to it - file a petition for emancipation from their parents. Unlike most emancipation petitions, there'll be no requirement for legal cause, or even any evidence of harm.
It's like "no fault divorce" for entire families.
So the term "residential facility" is important. What does it mean?
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.
"No-fault divorce" at least requires the petition to be served on the other party. This bill would cut parents entirely out of the process of knowing that their child has brought the action.
The next step would be an "investigation". And by "investigation", they mean "a social worker going through a checklist, determining if the home is safe", according to the bill:
This bill would require, if an application to commence proceedings is submitted by a minor on their own behalf, or by the minor’s attorney, and the minor is currently residing at a residential facility for children and youth, the social worker, when conducting a safety assessment or substitute care provider safety assessment, to also assess the safety of the home of those who hold custodial rights of the minor. The bill would authorize the application to be submitted to the social worker by mail, facsimile, or electronic mail.
And the result of that woke-checklist-checking exercise will be to turn the custody of the minors over to the domestic court and the foster system.
And California law - as in several of the more radical blue states - writes those checklists based on the presumption that a "safe" home is the one that requires parents, and the entire system, to presume that the stated wishes of a child who's not allowed to sign a contract, get a tattoo, join the military, rent a car or take out a credit card in their own name, are nonetheless entitled to choose not only their family, but to consent to physiology-altering treatment.
The courts and the foster system will become the "parents":
(3) Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a ward or a dependent child of the juvenile court until the ward or dependent child attains 21 years of age. Existing law also authorizes a nonminor who has not yet attained 21 years of age and who exited foster care at or after the age of majority, to petition the court to assume dependency jurisdiction over the nonminor, if they meet one of several specified criteria, including, among others, that they are a nonminor former dependent who received specified public assistance or adoption assistance benefits after attaining 18 years of age and their former guardian or adoptive parent no longer provides ongoing support and no longer receives aid on behalf of the nonminor.
So - why are they doing this?
Might it have something to do with this?
“The Ninth Circuit has granted a preliminary injunction blocking a California law that banned schools from disclosing to parents a child’s ‘gender identity.’
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 22, 2026
The city of Huntington Beach had sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom…
America First Legal represented the city.” pic.twitter.com/agCb1p9yfi
If schools are now required to inform parents, the next step would be to...make not parents anymore.
The goal is, of course, to completely neutralize families as society's most fundamental unit, and replace them with government, its rules, regulations, bureaucracy, and, above all, goals.
