Fact check: What are the specific requirements for AB-495 to be invoked in a school setting?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, AB-495 (The Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025) does not appear to have specific "invocation" requirements in school settings as the question suggests. Instead, the bill establishes ongoing protocols and policies that schools must implement.

The key school-related requirements identified include:

• Schools and licensed childcare facilities must implement the state attorney general's updated immigration-related policies for family preparedness ^[1]
• Schools must follow specific protocols and policies given by Attorney General Rob Bonta ^[2]
• Schools must standardize recognition of Caregiver's Authorization Affidavits ^[1]
• The bill expands the type of person authorized to execute a caregiver's authorization affidavit to include nonrelative extended family members and grants them the same rights as guardians to authorize school-related medical care ^[3]

Importantly, schools would only release children to designated emergency contacts, and a Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit does not allow someone to bypass school protocols and remove a child from school without parental consent ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes AB-495 has specific "invocation" requirements, but the sources indicate this is not how the bill operates. The bill appears to establish permanent policy changes rather than situational invocation procedures.

Critical missing context includes:

• The bill's broader purpose beyond schools: AB-495 supports families facing separation due to deportation, incarceration, illness, or military deployment ^{[4] [5]}
• Opposition viewpoints: The Kern County Board of Education rejected the Family Preparedness Bill AB-495 ^[2], indicating institutional resistance
• Legal limitations: The bill does not grant legal custody to caregivers, and a court order is still required for legal custody ^[1]

Organizations that benefit from supporting this narrative include:

• The Alliance for Children's Rights, which provides free legal services to caregivers seeking legal guardianship and would likely see increased demand for their services ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains a fundamental misunderstanding of how AB-495 operates. By asking about "specific requirements for AB-495 to be invoked," the question implies the bill works as an emergency measure that can be triggered, when the analyses show it establishes ongoing policies and protocols ^{[1] [2]}.

This framing could inadvertently perpetuate false narratives that critics have spread. As noted in the analyses, critics of AB-495 claim it could facilitate child exploitation, but these claims are false or lacking important context ^[1]. The question's emphasis on "invocation" requirements might reinforce misconceptions about the bill allowing unauthorized removal of children from schools, when the sources clearly state this is not the case ^[1].

The question also lacks acknowledgment of the bill's protective intent - to provide a safety net for separated families and protect children of detained parents ^[5] - which represents a significant omission of context.