Which states have passed laws similar to AB 495 and what outcomes have been reported since enactment?

1. What AB 495 actually does — the law on the books

AB 495, titled the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, amends the Education, Family, Probate and Health & Safety Codes to expand who may sign a caregiver’s authorization affidavit and to create a streamlined, short‑term joint guardianship process for parents temporarily unable to care for their children, including due to immigration enforcement; the bill was chaptered as Chapter 664, Statutes of 2025 ^{[2] [1] [6]}. The law also bars daycare providers and certain preschool programs from collecting immigration or citizenship information about children or their families except as required by other law, and requires school districts to update policies and parent information consistent with Attorney General guidance ^{[2] [4] [7]}.

2. Political and civic responses — sharply split advocacy

Supporters framed AB 495 as a practical safety net for children when parents are detained or deported and said the law builds on existing custody frameworks to preserve parental rights while preventing emergency family separation ^{[5] [4]}. Opponents — ranging from parental‑rights organizations, homeschool groups, faith leaders and some legal commentators — warned the bill risked exposing children to abuse, trafficking or unlawful parental exclusion and called it constitutionally problematic; critics staged large rallies and extensive public campaigns against the bill as it moved through the Legislature ^{[3] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]}.

3. What changes were made before enactment — compromise and removal of contested elements

Multiple outlets report the final version removed or narrowed the most controversial proposed expansions (for example, some earlier language about broader use of the caregiver’s authorization affidavit was rolled back), and advocates for children and some lawmakers touted amendments and added language protecting parental rights as part of the package that reached the Governor’s desk ^{[13] [14] [15]}. The California Policy Center and other critics assert the law still contains dangerous gaps, while government statements highlight urgency and protections ^{[3] [5] [14]}.

4. Reported outcomes since enactment — what the record shows (and doesn’t)

Available sources document enactment and immediate reactions — Gov. Newsom signing the bill and groups publicizing both praise and alarm — but do not provide empirical post‑enactment outcomes such as changes in school practices, numbers of temporary guardianships created, CPS interventions avoided, or incidents of misuse tied to the law ^{[1] [5] [4] [6]}. Sources note requirements for schools to update policies and for the Attorney General to provide guidance, but concrete metrics or longitudinal outcomes are not present in the supplied reporting ^{[7] [2]}. Therefore: not found in current reporting — no verified statistics or documented case studies showing the law’s real‑world effects after signing appear in these sources.

5. Where comparisons to other states would need evidence

The user asked which states have passed laws “similar to AB 495.” The materials supplied contain only California’s bill and related coverage ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Available sources do not mention any other state enacting directly comparable statutes in 2025 or earlier; therefore, claims that multiple states have passed similar laws are unsupported by the provided reporting. To substantiate interstate comparisons would require additional reporting or legislative tracking beyond these sources.

6. How to read the competing narratives — motives and framing

Supporters’ framing emphasizes emergency preparedness for immigrant families and protection from traumatic separation (statements from advocates and the Governor’s office are cited) ^{[5] [4]}. Opponents frame the law as an erosion of parental authority and raise safety and constitutional questions; groups opposing the bill have mobilized protests and legal warnings ^{[3] [9] [10] [11]}. Both camps have clear advocacy goals: immigrant‑rights and child‑safety groups pushed for legal tools to avoid family disruption, while parental‑rights organizations and faith groups marshaled alarms about expanded nonparent authority ^{[5] [3] [8]}.

Limitations: all factual assertions above are drawn from the supplied sources; available reporting documents enactment and debate but does not yet provide post‑enactment impact data such as usage rates, legal challenges outcomes, or measured changes in school practice ^{[1] [4] [7]}. If you want a state‑by‑state comparison or verified outcomes after implementation, I can search the legislative databases and local reporting beyond these sources.