Ab 495

1. What AB 495 actually does: a legal toolbox for temporary caregiving

AB 495 updates existing caregiving mechanisms so parents can prepare for temporary absences—whether arising from immigration enforcement, incarceration, military deployment, or medical emergencies—by standardizing and expanding recognition of the Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit and creating a new probate court process for short‑term joint guardianship that preserves parental rights while activating a guardian’s authority when needed ^{[2] [4] [3]}.

2. School and childcare rules: limits on collecting immigration data and shielding facilities

The law requires local educational agencies, licensed child daycare facilities, and license‑exempt state preschool programs to follow updated Attorney General policies that limit assistance with immigration enforcement; it also prohibits those schools and childcare providers from collecting information or documents on pupils’ or families’ citizenship or immigration status except as required by state or federal law or to administer certain programs ^{[5] [6] [2]}.

3. Role of the Attorney General: model policies and timing

AB 495 directs the California Attorney General to publish model policies by April 1, 2026 that address how licensed daycare and preschool facilities should handle immigration enforcement access requests, notification procedures, and demands for personal information, and requires facilities to provide parents or authorized representatives with information on how to access those policies ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Supporters’ framing: preventing trauma and preserving family stability

Supporters and co‑sponsors—including Alliance for Children’s Rights, Public Counsel, CHIRLA, and Assemblymember Rodriguez—describe the bill as a means to protect children from the trauma of family separation, to provide clear, legally recognized options for caregiving continuity, and to reassure immigrant and mixed‑status families that schools and agencies will follow policies to limit immigration enforcement impacts ^{[7] [8] [1]}.

5. Opponents’ concerns: risks of misuse and weakened safeguards

Parent advocacy groups and some commentators argue the bill creates risks: critics worry expanded affidavit use and broader caregiver categories (including “nonrelative extended family members” or close family, friends, godparents) could enable misuse, lack background checks, or be exploited by hostile relatives or bad actors—framing it as a possible loophole that could facilitate child abduction or trafficking if identity verification or safeguards are insufficient ^{[9] [10] [11]}.

6. Where reporting disagrees or emphasizes different risks

News and nonprofit coverage emphasize different aspects: outlets like KCRA explain the affidavit does not itself transfer custody and stress the probate‑court joint guardianship process preserves parental rights ^[4], while advocacy groups such as HSLDA and some parent‑advocacy sources highlight portions they regard as removed or dangerous and urged opposition during legislative debate ^{[9] [10]}. Both perspectives reference the same provisions but stress different outcomes—protection versus potential abuse ^{[4] [10]}.

7. Implementation and unanswered practicalities

Available sources describe required model policies, new guardianship procedures, and school/licensing requirements, but they do not provide detailed operational protocols (for example, exactly how identity verification or background checks will be enforced, if at all) — reporting notes advocates sought to remove some provisions during the legislative process and that Governor Newsom included language about parental rights in his signing statement, but specifics of enforcement and safeguards are described at a policy level rather than as step‑by‑step practice guidance ^{[1] [9] [2]}.

8. What to watch next

Watch how the Attorney General’s model policies (due April 1, 2026) handle identity verification, access requests, and information‑sharing; whether county probate courts adopt uniform short‑term joint guardianship forms; and how schools and licensed childcare update procedures and training to balance child safety, parental rights, and concerns raised by opponents ^{[5] [2] [3]}.

Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting and bill documents; available sources do not mention detailed enforcement protocols or whether new background‑check requirements will be added beyond existing law (not found in current reporting).