California’s AB 495, billed as the “Family Preparedness Plan Act,” would let any adult with a “mentoring relationship” obtain legal authority over a child through a simple affidavit, bypassing court oversight and parental consent.
Critics say the bill opens doors to kidnapping and medical decisions without parents’ knowledge. The measure also seals new joint-guardianship court files from federal immigration officials, raising pre-emption concerns under 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Supporters claim the bill protects children of detained immigrant parents by clarifying caregiver authority. The Senate Appropriations Committee will hear AB 495 on Aug 18; passage could send it to Governor Newsom’s desk by September.
The bill tries to give immigrant families a fast backup plan: if a parent is swept into detention or ends up in the hospital, another trusted adult could step in immediately to enroll the child in school and approve medical care. That speed is the upside—no court paperwork, no waiting period. The flip side is that the form can be filled out by almost anyone who claims a “mentoring relationship,” and service providers are told to rely on it. If a parent later objects, the statute says the parent’s decision controls, but nothing obliges schools or doctors to double-check first. In practice a parent might discover the switch only after the fact.
That gap raises a classic due-process question. Under the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court treats parental authority as a fundamental right. The state can limit that right, yet only with notice and a chance to be heard. Because AB 495 lets someone else make major medical and educational calls without first notifying the parent—or a judge—critics say the scheme could be struck down as an “end-run” around those procedural safeguards.
A separate fault line is federal pre-emption. Section 1373 of federal immigration law bars states from restricting the flow of basic immigration-status information to federal agents. AB 495 would seal the new guardianship files by default, releasing them only for “compelling necessity” unrelated to enforcement. Federal courts have already voided similar record-secrecy clauses in United States v. California (2019).
Finally, the bill carries an unfunded mandate that requires local agencies to translate notices and track usage statistics. Unless the Senate Appropriations Committee waives reimbursement, the Governor’s Department of Finance must estimate the statewide cost and either add it to the budget or suspend the mandate. Watch for that number when the committee meets on August 18. If costs run high or the notice amendment described above is added, the bill may be pushed to the two-year file—otherwise it could reach the Governor by mid-September, with lawsuits filed as early as the day after his signature.