What does California AB 495 propose to change in law?

1. What the bill explicitly adds — a toolbox for family continuity

AB 495 adds multiple concrete legal mechanisms intended to keep children stable when a parent becomes temporarily unavailable: expanding who may validly execute a Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit (initially to include nonrelative extended family members, later amended to relatives only in Assembly changes), creating a statutory path for courts to appoint a custodial parent and a parent‑nominated joint guardian during temporary absences, and requiring local agencies and childcare providers to accept and maintain family safety and emergency contact plans. The text ties these caregiving changes to the Probate and Family Codes and to routine school enrollment and health‑care consent processes, framing the measures as administrative and judicial tools to reduce family separation harms ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

2. Privacy and immigration‑enforcement limits — protecting families from data collection

A central thrust of AB 495 is to bar K‑12 schools and licensed day‑care facilities from gathering citizenship or immigration status information from students and families, except where already required by state or federal law, and to mandate adoption of Attorney General model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement. The bill directs local educational agencies and child‑care providers to update or adopt these model policies, report law‑enforcement requests, and provide written guidance to families, placing privacy and non‑cooperation with immigration enforcement at the core of its school and childcare reforms ^{[2] [5] [3]}.

3. The caregiver affidavit debate — how far does authority reach?

Early drafts of AB 495 would have broadened the Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit beyond relatives to include nonrelative extended family members, granting such designees the power to enroll children and consent to routine medical and school matters. Legislative amendments removed that nonrelative expansion, narrowing the affidavit’s applicability to relatives only. This change reflects competing priorities: advocates sought flexibility for immigrant and unconventional families, while opponents and some legislators raised concerns about child safety and parental rights, prompting the compromise recorded in Assembly amendments ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Courts, confidentiality, and safeguards — balancing access with oversight

The bill authorizes probate courts to appoint temporary joint guardianship arrangements that give deference to a parent’s chosen nominee while preserving parental rights. AB 495 includes procedural safeguards: courts must investigate and may impose confidentiality protections on records related to guardianship nominations tied to immigration or safety concerns, and the bill reaffirms that nothing in the statute supplants parental authority on major decisions such as medical treatment. These provisions aim to thread a legal needle: enable swift, court‑recognized caregiving solutions without eroding parental decision‑making or bypassing child‑safety investigations ^{[2] [5] [6]}.

5. Political context, implementation timeline, and potential friction

Supporters portray AB 495 as practical pandemic‑era and immigration‑era policy to reduce child trauma from sudden parental absence, urging rapid implementation and state guidance from the Attorney General; the Governor’s signing actions and executive materials emphasize protections beginning January 1, 2026 for model policy adoption and enforcement. Critics warned about scope creep and the potential for inconsistent application across districts and facilities; the Assembly amendment removing nonrelative caregivers indicates legislative compromise. The bill also carries fiscal and administrative obligations—training, reporting, and possible reimbursement for mandated costs—creating points of friction in local implementation and enforcement across diverse school and childcare environments ^{[7] [3] [8]}.