Last Updated: August 15, 2025
Bill: AB 495: Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025
Author(s): Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez
Position: Oppose
Current Status: Governor’s Desk
Action: Call Your Senator Today
Summary:
Assembly Bill 495—the so-called “Family Preparedness Plan Act”—is being sold as a way to help families when parents are detained or deported. But it’s not limited to those cases. As written, these changes could invite overreach by hostile relatives, confusion, and misuse by courts or agencies. See our statement below:
We at FPM worked with CHEA and HSLDA to analyze AB 495 and send you this assessment and call to action.
Why AB 495 Is Dangerous:
AB 495 is being promoted as a compassionate fix for families in crisis when a parent is detained or deported. But the bill’s text doesn’t limit its use to immigration-related emergencies—it could apply in any situation that meets its broad definitions.
The measure would:
- Greatly enlarge the definition of “relative” to include kin as distant as the fifth degree—such as second cousins, great-great aunts and uncles, and their descendants.
- Create an entirely new category of “non-relative extended family member” covering virtually anyone with an “established familial or mentoring relationship” with the child—or even with a relative of the child.
The more people who can purport to step into a parent’s role, the greater the chance for confusion, conflict, or outright misuse—especially if a school, agency, or court treats “unable to contact” as a low bar for bypassing the parent. This undefined phrase could be interpreted so loosely that even brief delays in reaching a parent would allow others to act in their place, including authorizing major medical care.
Key Points—Why FPM Opposes AB 495
- Expands an already constitutionally shaky law instead of fixing its flaws.
- Overreach by hostile relatives and even nonrelatives becomes more likely with broader definitions of who can claim parental authority.
- Undefined phrase “unable to contact” could be stretched to mean even brief communication delays.
- No proof is required to verify that the parent entrusted the child to the caregiver.
- Vague language plus broad definitions equals greater risk of court or agency misuse.
The Current Law—and Its Flaws
Since 1994, California’s “caregiver affidavit” law (Family Code § 6550) has let certain adults who live with a child temporarily enroll a child in school and authorizes “relatives,” broadly defined, to consent to medical or dental care—without a formal guardianship. In other words, existing law already allows certain relatives to avoid the formal remedy of legal guardianship to obtain the same legal rights as a parent to authorize medical care of a child.
Under current law, by presenting a statutorily created affidavit to schools or medical providers:
- A caregiver over 18 who lives with the child can enroll her in school and consent to school-related medical care.
- Certain “relative caregivers” could also claim the same authority as a parent to approve medical or dental treatment.
The affidavit must say the parents have been advised and do not object—or that they are “unable to be contacted.” But there’s no requirement to prove the parents placed the child with that person in the first place, and “unable to contact” is undefined. That leaves the door open to overreach if someone, including a hostile relative, uses the affidavit without clear parental consent.
We are not aware of any case where this law has been abused in that way—but the combination of broad authority with vague standards is a constitutional flaw.
What AB 495 Would Do
AB 495 takes these existing weaknesses and widens the opening:
- More potential claimants—far more distant relatives and non-relatives could qualify.
- Looser guardrails—the undefined “unable to contact” standard remains, now with a much larger pool of people who could invoke it.
- Greater risk of misuse—the more people who can claim parental authority, the greater the chance of overreach, particularly in contentious family situations.
Small openings in the law can become wide gateways when vague language meets expansive interpretation. Once that opening exists, courts and agencies can push far beyond what the legislature originally intended.
A Better Path Forward
A more carefully drafted, narrowly drawn statute could meet genuine needs—such as helping children when parents are truly unavailable—without threatening the fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing. That would mean:
- Narrower definitions of “relative” and “non-relative caregiver.”
- Clear proof that the parent entrusted the child to that person.
- A precise definition of “unable to contact” that prevents misuse.
Action Items:
CALL NOW TO PROTECT PARENTS – REJECT AB 495 AS WRITTEN
Parents should never lose their right to make education or medical decisions for their children because of vague legal language, overly broad definitions, or undefined terms like “unable to contact.” AB 495 compounds existing flaws in the caregiver-affidavit statute, making it easier for third parties, potentially including hostile relatives, to assert parental authority without clear consent.
As it stands, AB 495 begins with a constitutionally shaky law and makes it more vulnerable to abuse and misinterpretation. That is a step in the wrong direction for California families.
The bill already passed the Assembly on June 3 and is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, August 18 at 10:00 a.m.
Ask your California state senator to reject AB 495. Call now to protect parental rights!
Additional News/Articles:
- HSLDA Urges California Senate to Reject AB 495: Parental Rights at Risk
- Why HSLDA Opposes AB 495
- California Assembly Bill 495
- “The Frontline” Action Alert
