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.
AB 435
Executive summary
AB 435 is a California 2025-2026 bill that updates the legal standard for when a child must use a booster seat by formally incorporating a “5‑step test” into the definition of “properly restrained by a safety belt,” and the measure advanced through committee and was chaptered into law in 2025 (bill language and analyses) [1] [2] [3]. Coverage shows supporters frame the change as tightening child-passenger safety rules; critics raised equity, enforcement, and practicality concerns as the bill moved through the Assembly and Senate [4] [5].
1. What AB 435 actually changes: a technical but consequential definition
AB 435 revises California’s statutory definition of “properly restrained by a safety belt” to explicitly incorporate the 5‑step test for determining whether a child needs a booster seat; that test is to be applied beginning January 1, 2027, and if a child fails any step, the child must remain in a booster seat, with the stated goal of ensuring the belt fits to reduce injury risk [1] [2] [6].
2. The 5‑step test: what reporting and legislative materials emphasize
Legislative analyses and bill materials describe the 5‑step test as a checklist of seatbelt fit elements — lap belt placement over hips/upper thighs and shoulder belt crossing the chest, plus seat position and back contact — that together determine if a child can safely use an adult belt without a booster; AB 435 makes those fit criteria part of the legal standard for “properly restrained” [1] [2] [6].
3. Why proponents pushed the change: safety advocates and research cited
Supporters argued the change aligns law with current child passenger safety science and improves clarity for parents and law enforcement; bill materials point to studies and advocacy that updated guidance reduces injury risk by ensuring belts fit properly, and organizations like AAA expressed support for laws keeping children under age 13 in the back seat in appropriate restraints [1] [5].
4. Concerns raised during legislation: enforcement, equity and practicalities
Reporting and commentary show legislators and observers raised worries about how the new five‑step, fit‑based rule would be enforced in real‑world traffic stops, whether drivers would be ticketed for not knowing or applying the test, and how families with limited access to booster seats would be affected; article coverage specifically notes concerns over practicality and equity as the bill advanced through committees [4] [6].
5. Penalties and “watered‑down” compromises reported after enactment
Post-enactment reporting indicates the signed law was described by some outlets as a “watered‑down” version of earlier proposals that had contemplated stricter measures — such as bans on smaller teens sitting in front seats — and that fines for violations were reported in coverage (for example, a $490 fine figure appeared in reporting about the signed law) [7]. Legislative tracking also records the bill passed both houses and was chaptered as a 2025 statute [3] [8].
6. Political context and intra‑party dynamics noted by reporters
CalMatters reported the bill’s path and said authorial and caucus dynamics influenced how tough the final measure could be; AB 435’s sponsor faced resistance within the Democratic caucus tied in part to unrelated political fallout, demonstrating how broader political dynamics shaped the final language and enforcement posture [7].
7. Implementation questions the reporting leaves open
Available sources document the statutory change and public debate but provide limited detail about how agencies (like CHP or local police) will operationalize training, how school or daycare policies will change, or whether there will be new funding for booster distribution; bill materials reference programs for free/subsidized seats but specifics on scale or new funding are not fully explained in the cited materials [6] [1].
8. Competing perspectives you should weigh
Safety advocates and some technical analyses present AB 435 as aligning law with science to reduce injury; community advocates and some legislators emphasize enforcement fairness and access to booster seats. Readers should note that proponents emphasize clear safety benefits from correct belt fit, while opponents stress potential disproportionate impacts on families lacking resources or facing ambiguous enforcement [1] [4] [5].
9. Bottom line for parents and drivers
Beginning with the law’s effective timeline and enforcement details in the bill, drivers in California will need to consider the 5‑step fit test when transporting children; if a child does not meet all five steps, current reporting indicates the expectation is the child should remain in an appropriate booster seat per the updated legal definition [1] [2] [7].
If you want, I can pull the exact 5‑step test language from the bill text and produce a plain‑language checklist you could print or use in a car. Available sources do not mention the step‑by‑step checklist verbatim in the summaries provided here; I can extract it from the official bill text if you’d like [2].