Fact check: According to AB495 do parents need to give consent?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, AB495 does NOT require parental consent for a caregiver's authorization affidavit to be executed. The bill allows a nonrelative extended family member to execute this affidavit, which grants them the same rights to authorize school-related medical care as guardians, without requiring parental consent, court review, or notarization ^{[1] [2]}.

The caregiver's authorization affidavit can be used to authorize medical care and dental care for a minor as long as the caregiver is 18 years of age or older and signs the affidavit under penalty of perjury ^[1]. The bill's language applies to any child for any reason, regardless of immigration status, and grants temporary legal rights to individuals with no blood relation to the child ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the significant controversy surrounding AB495. Critics argue that the bill eliminates crucial safeguards like background checks and home visits, allowing strangers to authorize medical treatments and enroll children in different schools without parental consent ^[4].

Opposition viewpoint: Organizations like the California Family Council argue that AB495 "strips away parental rights and creates legal loopholes for kidnapping" and allows people who may not even be known to the child's parents to assume control ^{[2] [3]}. Critics contend that the bill creates legal loopholes that make it easy for strangers to take custody of children without background checks, court oversight, or verification of the adult's relationship to the child ^[3].

Supporters' viewpoint: The bill is titled the "Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025," suggesting it's intended to help families prepare for emergencies or situations where parents may be temporarily unavailable ^[1].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, simply asking about parental consent requirements under AB495. However, it lacks context about the heated debate surrounding this legislation. The question doesn't acknowledge that this is a controversial bill that has generated significant opposition from parental rights advocates who view it as potentially dangerous to children's safety and family integrity.

The framing as a simple procedural question about consent requirements may inadvertently minimize the broader implications that critics argue the bill creates - namely, that it could allow unvetted strangers to gain legal authority over children without any parental involvement or oversight ^{[3] [4]}.