Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What types of booster seats are approved by California law?
Executive Summary
California law currently requires most children under 8 years old or under 4 feet 9 inches to be restrained in a child safety seat or booster seat while riding in a vehicle; the state also retains a specific rear-facing requirement for those under 2 years old unless they meet weight or height exceptions [1]. Recent legislative activity in 2025 introduced a five-step test that redefines what it means to be “properly restrained” and applies to children up to age 16, shifting enforcement emphasis from age and height alone to seat-belt fit and positioning [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and official guidance differ in emphasis — highway patrol guidance restates existing age/height rules while newer coverage highlights the five-step test and proposed expansions such as Assembly Bill 435, which reflects competing safety priorities and political debate over when children can graduate from booster seats [1] [3].
1. What the law says today — a simple threshold or a mixed rule?
California’s baseline legal rule remains that children under 8 years old must be secured in a child safety seat or booster seat and that children under 2 must ride rear-facing unless they meet the 40-pound or 40-inch exception; once a child is 8 or at least 4’9”, they may use a vehicle’s safety belt rather than a booster [1]. This dual standard — age/height plus a rear-facing exception — persists in official guidance and undergirds enforcement and safety messaging. News summaries emphasize that the preexisting statutory thresholds remain relevant for most families, with law enforcement and child passenger safety programs continuing to rely on the age and height breakpoints for everyday compliance checks [1]. The practical effect is a clear legal floor: many children will still legally require boosters until they reach either the age or height benchmark.
2. What changed in 2025 — a five-step test and a policy shift
In 2025, legislative action and subsequent press coverage focused on redefining “properly restrained” by introducing a five-step test that examines seat-belt fit and the child’s seating position rather than relying solely on age and height; the new rule applies to children through age 16 for determining whether a seat belt provides proper restraint [2] [3] [4]. Proponents argue the test targets real-world fit issues — lap belt placement, shoulder belt position, and the child’s ability to sit correctly for a full trip — which research and safety advocates say better predicts crash protection than age alone [2] [3]. Opponents and some analysts warn this creates implementation and enforcement complexity, since distinguishing correct belt fit requires training and subjective assessment by front-line officers and caregivers [3] [4].
3. How official agencies and news outlets frame the risk and benefit
Official California Highway Patrol guidance reiterates the statutory age and height thresholds and the rear-facing rule for infants, emphasizing clear, enforceable bright-line rules that are straightforward for parents and police to follow [1]. By contrast, news coverage and advocates covering the 2025 law highlight the five-step test as a safety improvement, arguing it closes gaps where taller or older children still suffer poor belt fit and higher injury risk [2] [3]. The two frames reveal different priorities: agencies favor enforceability and public clarity, while safety advocates and some lawmakers prioritize individualized fit and crash biomechanics. Both perspectives are factual and reflect differing operational trade-offs for statewide education, enforcement, and potential future amendments [1] [2].
4. The legislative push and possible agendas behind AB 435
Assembly Bill 435 and related 2025 proposals aimed to extend booster-seat considerations and formalize the five-step fit test, signaling policymakers’ intent to modernize child passenger safety law in response to contemporary data and advocacy [3]. Supporters—often child-safety advocates and some public health officials—frame the bill as filling real-world safety gaps and reducing injury among older children with poor belt fit. Critics express concern about increased regulatory complexity and potential overreach into parental discretion or law enforcement resources, suggesting some political motive to appear proactive on child safety ahead of broader debates about traffic safety funding and enforcement priorities [4] [3]. The bill’s text and legislative history show trade-offs between technical safety improvements and practical enforceability.
5. Bottom line for parents and policymakers — what to watch next
For parents the actionable guidance is unchanged in practice: use rear-facing seats for infants under 2 unless they meet the specified exception, keep children in forward-facing seats and boosters until they meet the 8-year or 4’9” thresholds or satisfy the five-step fit test, and prioritize proper belt fit when deciding whether to transition out of a booster [1] [2]. Policymakers and enforcers will need to develop training and public education materials if the five-step test is implemented broadly; failure to do so risks inconsistent enforcement and public confusion, while thoughtful rollout could improve child protection by aligning law with how belts actually fit bodies [3] [4]. Watch for updated CHP guidance, implementation timelines, and training resources as the next indicators of how these rules will affect everyday compliance and road safety [1] [3].