Fact check: When did governor Newsom sign ab495

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources contain information about when Governor Newsom signed AB 495. All sources focus on the content and controversy surrounding the bill rather than its signing date. The analyses consistently indicate that while the sources discuss AB 495's provisions and the debates it has generated, they do not provide the specific information requested about the timing of Governor Newsom's signature ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

The sources do confirm that AB 495 exists and has been the subject of significant public debate, with some describing it as the "Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025" ^[5]. The bill appears to relate to expanding caregiver rights for children separated from parents ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important pieces of context missing from the original question:

• The bill's controversial nature: Multiple sources indicate that AB 495 has faced significant opposition and generated substantial public debate ^{[1] [4] [6]}
• Child exploitation concerns: Critics have raised warnings about potential risks of child exploitation related to the bill's provisions ^{[2] [3]}
• Fact-checking perspectives: Some sources provide fact-checking analysis addressing concerns about the bill, with at least one source stating that "the bill does not grant custody of a child to anyone and is not a tool for human trafficking" ^[3]
• Public demonstrations: There have been organized opposition efforts, with "thousands" standing against AB 495 at the California State Capitol ^[6]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward factual inquiry about when Governor Newsom signed AB 495. However, the question assumes that Governor Newsom has already signed the bill, which may not be accurate based on the available sources. The analyses do not confirm that the bill has been signed into law, only that it exists and has generated controversy. This assumption in the question's phrasing could lead to the spread of inaccurate information about the bill's current legal status.