The AB495 bill, pushed this year in California, has caused a huge uproar among parent groups. After thousands of parents protested in front of the California State Capitol last Tuesday (19th), the bill has been temporarily put on hold in the State Senate. It is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee this Friday (29th) and a vote will determine if it will move forward, potentially being voted on and sent to the governor for signing on the same day.
AB495, introduced by Democratic State Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez, passed in the Assembly on June 3rd. It expands the scope of guardianship and joint custody to ensure that children’s educational, medical, and dental needs are met when their parents are detained or deported by immigration officials. However, opponents including parents, legal professionals, and religious figures argue that its loopholes could put children in danger.
The bill, titled “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025,” expands guardianship to non-relatives. Opponents fear that once implemented, it could be abused—not just targeting undocumented immigrants but all families, potentially stripping parental rights and creating opportunities for child predators and traffickers.
The sheer number of people who protested in the state capital of California on the 19th was unprecedented, with several pastors speaking at the event. Protesters held signs saying “Reject AB495, Join the Resistance,” “Protect Parental Rights,” and “This is Child Trafficking.” Many parents in the Chinese community in Southern California also urged participation in the protest.
Facing the backlash, Rodriguez explained the legislative intent in an interview with San Francisco media and posted it on her personal website. She stated that the proposal originated from stories of immigrant families she had heard, with the aim of protecting families in times of emergency. The bill is based on a tool existing in California law for over thirty years, allowing parents to temporarily designate a trusted caregiver. AB495 modernizes this tool to address the reality faced by undocumented immigrant families facing deportation, ensuring that children are cared for by familiar or beloved individuals.
Supporters of AB495 include organizations such as the Children’s Rights Alliance and the California Parent-Teacher Association, among over thirty child welfare and immigrant rights groups. Lawyer Sharon Cartagena, who participated in drafting the bill, told ABC7 that she focused on helping children whose parents are detained. Signing the “Care Authorization Oath” only allows for tasks like taking a child to the doctor or enrolling them in school, without involving a transfer of legal guardianship.
Protesters argue that the bill has many loopholes. For instance, through a simple oath, without the need for court appearances, notarization, parental consent, background checks, or identity verification requirements, a completely unfamiliar adult (with established family or guidance relationships) could take on the role of a guardian, thereby expanding the range of guardians legally.
Pastor Jack Hibbs, who spoke at the event, told Fox News that this could be the worst and most dangerous bill ever introduced in California. The key issue is that the bill overlooks schools’ responsibility for children’s safety, not requiring schools to obtain parental consent or conduct background checks on the individuals signing the oath. Additionally, the oath requires providing a driver’s license number, but it can be replaced with a social security number or medical card number during enforcement.
Craig DeLuz, running for Congress in California’s 6th District, criticized the bill, stating that opponents believe it damages the existing legal framework protecting children during crises; California already has mechanisms prioritizing child safety for temporary guardianship, and AB495 represents a misleadingly sympathetic approach that could lead to confusion and harm.
If AB495 is passed, it will take effect on July 1, 2026. Given the absolute dominance of Democratic legislators in the California Assembly, some parents are understandably anxious. In light of this, Chinese-American lawyer Longzhu Liu in Southern California suggests that parents take the following steps to protect their children:
Firstly, establish and control an emergency contact framework in hierarchical order, requiring schools to contact and confirm individuals on the list in sequence before allowing anyone with a care authorization document to interact with a child.
Parents should provide written instructions to the school: No one should act beyond the designated individuals in the order without written parental consent. Parents should also request the school to retain records of confirmations such as calls and emails.
Secondly, Longzhu Liu suggests that parents limit the use of care authorization documents, requiring parental confirmation for anyone holding such authorization. When necessary, clauses can be added, mandating the school to obtain parental confirmation before releasing the child. If contact cannot be made, two email or call attempts must be documented.
Technically, parents should request the school to perform “pick-up verification”: Authorized pick-up persons must receive electronic confirmation from parents before the school can release the child. If an alleged caregiver is unconfirmed, it should be treated as an emergency, and the school must immediately notify parents and law enforcement.
Lastly, Longzhu Liu recommends that parents cultivate their children’s awareness of safety precautions and self-protection abilities, which is crucial in preventing child trafficking.