Governor Gavin Newsom just signed Assembly Bill 495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025. On paper, it is marketed as safety and compassion. In practice, it widens access for non-parents to remove children from school and authorize medical care without real verification. California has once again passed a feel-good law that looks helpful in a press release and looks reckless anywhere else.
What the Law Claims to Do
Supporters say the law protects kids when families face separation. The bill’s author, Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez, calls it “a crucial step toward protecting children and families at a time when they are facing the terror of separation,” insisting it “strengthen[s] parental rights and community preparedness.” Governor Newsom says, “Our children deserve to feel safe at home, in school and in the community,” adding that the law helps families “keep their private information safe, maintain parental rights and help families prepare in case of emergencies.” The law also bans licensed childcare and preschools from collecting immigration-related information about children or parents.
Backers highlight immigrant and mixed-status families who might be split by detention or deportation. The Governor’s office says nearly half of California children have at least one immigrant parent and that nearly one million citizen children in the state are at risk of separation. Advocacy groups such as CHIRLA argue that “every child deserves safety and protection, and every parent deserves the right to plan for their family’s future without fear.”
What the Law Actually Does
Under AB 495, “relatives” as broadly defined — within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, great- and great-great-relations, and even ex-in-laws — can use a one-page Caregiver Authorization Affidavit to remove a child from school, enroll a child, and authorize medical care. The form does not need to be notarized. Schools are not required to verify the information on the form. The law also lets schools help parents prepare safety plans if separated by immigration enforcement and forbids daycare providers from retaining immigration information.
The Core Critiques
Critics see a gaping door for abuse. A California Family Council summary argues the bill “strips parents of their constitutional right and hands them over to unverified strangers.” Attorney Erin Friday calls it “a child trafficker’s and kidnapper’s dream bill,” warning there is “no background check, no welfare check, no court oversight, and no verification” and that “presto, someone walks away with your child.” Attorney Nicole Pearson told lawmakers, “California wants to let someone that is not related to your child remove her from school, enroll her in any other school in the state, authorize any medical treatment of her, including mental health services and drugs, without the parents’ notice and knowledge or consent.”
Chino Valley school board member Sonja Shaw says the law “actually erases parents from the process if there is an emergency,” and Real Life Network’s Jack Hibbs calls it “the most egregious, dangerous bill for parental rights and child safety,” describing it as “state-sanctioned kidnapping or trafficking.” California Family Council president Jonathan Keller urges schools and clinics to refuse any affidavit “without a verified signature from a parent or legal guardian.”
The loosened rules invite kidnapping, trafficking, and medical decision-making by adults who are not legal guardians. They stress that the affidavit can be accepted without notarization or verification, and that institutions may rely on it to release a child or authorize treatment. Critics also highlight risks for children caught in contentious medical or mental health scenarios. As Chloe Cole and Luke Healy argue, the bill could let any adult claiming a “mentoring relationship” step in to authorize life-altering decisions, sidelining parents when it matters most.
How It Interferes With Parental Rights
The problem is not the stated goal of keeping families together. The problem is the mechanism. By elevating an unverified paper over the day-to-day authority of mothers and fathers, the state tells schools and providers to treat a self-proclaimed caregiver like a de facto guardian. Parents can remain the legal guardians on paper while being bypassed in practice. As one legal critic put it, compassion without guardrails is not mercy, it is madness.
Newsom’s office insists the law “does not make any changes to who can be a child’s caregiver, legal custodian, guardian or parent, without a court order,” and notes that changes in custody still require a court. Supporters say AB 495 simply provides tools for emergency planning and keeps children with trusted caregivers. They argue it protects privacy, prevents unnecessary trauma, and keeps kids out of foster care when a parent is detained.
If the state truly wanted to protect families without trampling parents, it would require verification, notarization, and clear notice to the legal parent. It would not tell schools they have no duty to verify. It would not normalize hand-offs based on a one-page affidavit while calling it parental protection. California had workable safeguards through temporary guardianships and court processes. Instead, lawmakers chose speed and slogans.
The result is a law that invites confusion and bad actors while daring parents to trust a system that openly removes guardrails. California wrapped this in the language of safety and compassion and then cut parents out of the loop. No wonder critics are furious. For parents who still think their signatures and instructions matter, this is the moment to update every school and medical file, put clear limits in writing, and join efforts to restore real parental consent. Because if Sacramento will not verify who speaks for your child, you had better make sure everyone else knows exactly who does.
