I came across this just recently. Just as the title says.
"The bill, which has already passed the State Assembly, would requiree* judges adjudicating such disputes over transgender-identifying children to favor the parent who "affirms" the child's preferred identity. Earlier this week the authors released an updated version that specifically defines "the health, safety, and welfare" of a child to include "a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity"—a change that the bill's opponents worry will open the door to non-affirmation being treated as abuse.
""When you say that gender affirmation is in the child's best interest for health, safety, and welfare, it takes nothing to say [non-affirmation] is now abuse—because you're not taking care of the health, safety, and welfare if you’re not affirming them," said Erin Friday, a San Francisco attorney and co-lead of the parent coalition Our Duty."
And then,
"While the updated language does not define what affirmation means, it tells judges to consider anything less by parents on par with the parents' history of drug and alcohol use, physical abuse, or neglect of a child. The bill makes no distinctions regarding the age of a child, how long a child has identified as transgender, or affirmation of social transition versus medical sex-change treatments."
And this in on top of California being a "safe haven" for minors from other states who want radical surgery, even without parental consent.
https://freebeacon.com/california/california-bill-would-punish-parents-who-dont-affirm-their-childs-gender-identity/