Fact check: How does AB 495 affect businesses in California as of 2025?

1. Summary of the results

AB 495, known as the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, has significant implications for businesses in California, particularly those in education and childcare sectors. The bill has passed the Assembly and is currently in the Senate Committee on Appropriations ^{[1] [2]}.

Key business impacts include:

• Licensed child day care facilities must adopt model policies that limit assistance with immigration enforcement ^{[2] [3]}
• Local educational agencies (schools) are required to implement similar policies restricting cooperation with immigration authorities ^{[2] [3]}
• Educational institutions and childcare facilities are prohibited from collecting information on citizenship or immigration status ^[3]
• The legislation creates a state-mandated local program that affects these businesses operationally ^[2]
• The bill expands the crime of perjury in relation to caregiver authorization affidavits, which could create legal compliance requirements ^[2]

The bill fundamentally expands the definition of "caregiver" to include "nonrelative extended family members" who can execute caregiver authorization affidavits and make school-related medical decisions for minors ^{[2] [4] [3]}. These affidavits remain valid for up to one year unless rescinded by parents, legal guardians, or caregivers ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the controversial nature of this legislation and the competing interests at stake.

Opposition viewpoint: Critics argue that AB 495 "dangerously redefines" guardianship and could facilitate child kidnapping due to the overly broad definition of "nonrelative extended family member," potentially allowing unqualified individuals to assume significant responsibilities over children ^[6]. Parental rights groups would benefit from opposing this legislation as it aligns with their mission to protect traditional family structures and parental authority.

Support viewpoint: Proponents claim the bill expands child welfare protections and ensures children can access family services without unwanted disruptions, particularly benefiting immigrant families facing potential separation ^[6]. Immigration advocacy organizations and immigrant communities would benefit from this legislation as it provides legal protections during family crises.

Business compliance burden: The analyses don't address the potential financial costs to educational institutions and childcare facilities for implementing new policies, staff training, and ensuring compliance with the expanded perjury provisions.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no apparent misinformation but suffers from significant omissions that could mislead readers about the bill's scope and controversy:

• Fails to mention that this is specifically immigration-related legislation designed to protect families from separation ^{[2] [3]}
• Omits the contentious debate surrounding child safety concerns and the redefinition of caregiver roles ^[6]
• Doesn't specify which types of businesses are affected, creating an impression that all California businesses face impacts when the legislation primarily targets educational and childcare sectors ^{[2] [3]}
• Lacks context about the bill's current legislative status and the ongoing political debate ^{[1] [2]}

The neutral framing of the question could inadvertently minimize the significant policy implications and heated political debate surrounding this legislation, potentially serving those who prefer to avoid discussing the immigration-related aspects of the bill.