AB 495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, is a package of statutory changes that aims to reduce disruption to children when a parent or primary caregiver is temporarily unavailable — including because of immigration‑related actions. The bill revises the caregiver’s authorization affidavit (the form many relatives use to enroll and obtain school medical care for children), expands who counts as a “relative” with authority under that form, and adds explicit protections and reporting duties for schools and licensed child day care facilities to limit assistance with immigration enforcement.
The bill also amends Probate and Family Code provisions to allow, at the court’s discretion, the custodial parent and a parent‑nominated person to serve as joint guardians while the parent is temporarily unavailable, makes those proceedings confidential, and requires state agencies and local providers to adopt or update model policies and guidance generated by the Attorney General and state departments. The package combines privacy protections, clarified medical‑consent mechanics, and administrative duties intended to keep children in stable care during short‑term family crises.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires updated model policies and guidance from the Attorney General for schools and child‑care settings and obligates local educational agencies, licensed child daycare facilities, and California state preschool programs to adopt or align their policies. It adjusts the caregiver’s authorization affidavit to give certain relatives expanded medical‑consent rights and creates a court option to appoint joint guardians (custodial parent plus a nominee) when a parent is temporarily unavailable.
Who It Affects
School districts, county offices of education, charter schools, licensed child daycare facilities, license‑exempt California state preschool programs, the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Education, health care providers receiving caregiver affidavits, and probate/juvenile courts.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes practices that have been inconsistent across schools and early‑care settings, reduces legal ambiguity for providers relying on caregiver affidavits, and builds confidentiality safeguards around temporary guardianship proceedings — all changes that materially affect frontline implementation, compliance, and recordkeeping in education, child care, courts, and health care.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 495 updates multiple codes to create a coordinated state approach for keeping children stable when parents or caregivers face temporary unavailability. On the family‑law side, the bill rewrites the caregiver’s authorization affidavit form and its mechanics: completing items 1–4 still authorizes enrollment and school‑related medical care, while completing items 5–8 (and signing) triggers the expanded authority for a caregiver who is a relative to consent to broader medical and dental care — including certain mental health services within Probate Code limits.
The form must contain bolded warning language and provide clear notices to caregivers, schools, and health care providers about the affidavit’s scope and limitations. The statute preserves the long‑standing good‑faith‑reliance protection for providers who accept a substantially completed affidavit without actual knowledge of contrary facts, but it also makes knowingly false statements subject to perjury penalties.
On guardianship, the bill gives courts discretion to appoint joint guardians composed of the custodial parent and a person nominated by that parent when the parent is temporarily unavailable for specified reasons (the list includes incarceration, serious medical conditions, military service, and immigration‑related administrative actions). The statute treats absence as a permissible trigger for delayed effectiveness of a nomination, preserves the parent’s ability to resume care (a termination petition is presumptively in the child’s best interest when availability is restored), and requires that records, petitions, orders, and documents from these joint‑guardian proceedings be kept confidential and disclosed only to parties and their attorneys.
The law also bars release of information in these records to immigration enforcement without a court order.For schools and early‑care settings, AB 495 tightens prohibitions on collecting citizenship or immigration status information and narrows agency access to nonpublic areas of schoolsites unless presented with a valid judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order; it also limits disclosure of education records to immigration enforcement absent a judicial document. The Attorney General must publish or update model policies addressing access, notification, and responses to information requests, and state departments must notify local providers and require adoption or alignment of those policies within specified deadlines.
Licensed child daycare facilities must report requests for information or access by immigration enforcement to the State Department of Social Services and the Attorney General (license‑exempt preschool programs report to the State Department of Education and the Attorney General), and facilities must first try any emergency‑contact instructions before contacting child‑protective services when a parent is unavailable.Implementation is mediated by conditional operative provisions: the bill contains alternative amendments to the Education Code that are triggered depending on legislative sequencing with AB 49 and AB 419. The State Department of Justice and relevant departments have delegated authority to implement many parts without formal rulemaking, and the Department of Social Services may use interim licensing standards to put new daycare requirements into effect while promulgating regulations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The caregiver’s authorization affidavit now distinguishes items 1–4 (enrollment and school‑related medical care) from items 5–8, which a qualifying relative must complete to obtain guardian‑equivalent authority to consent to broader medical and dental care, including some mental‑health treatment under Probate Code limits.
The bill expands the criminal exposure for false affidavits by explicitly tying knowingly false statements on the form to perjury and requires the form to include prominent bolded warnings about that penalty.
Courts may appoint joint guardians composed of the custodial parent and a nominated person when the parent is temporarily unavailable for reasons spelled out in the statute (including immigration‑related administrative actions), and those proceedings and records are designated confidential and not disclosable to immigration enforcement without a court order.
Licensed child daycare facilities must report any requests for information or access by an immigration‑enforcement officer to the State Department of Social Services and the Attorney General; license‑exempt California state preschool programs report to the State Department of Education and the Attorney General.
The Attorney General must update school model policies to align with the statute by December 1, 2025, and must publish model policies for child daycare settings by April 1, 2026; California state preschool programs must adopt those daycare model policies no later than July 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative purpose and intent
Explains the policy problem: parental separation (including from immigration actions) harms children and existing tools such as caregiver affidavits and temporary guardianships are inconsistently applied. The findings frame the act as intended to create clearer, enforceable short‑term caregiving options, improve recognition of affidavits by schools and providers, and promote consistent policies across education and early‑care systems.
Multiple, conditional updates to school privacy and immigration‑enforcement policies
The bill supplies three alternative amendments to §234.7 that are conditionally operative depending on whether AB 49 and/or AB 419 are enacted and in what order. The unified goal is the same across variants: bar collection of citizenship and immigration status; limit entry to nonpublic school areas by immigration authorities without a judicial warrant/subpoena or court order; restrict disclosure of education records to immigration enforcement except under judicial process; require school reporting of requests for access; post and distribute Attorney General guidance (including the 'Know Your Educational Rights' guide) in multiple languages; and mandate local adoption and alignment timelines (including a March 1, 2026 policy alignment deadline in some variants). The section also authorizes DOJ to implement aspects without formal rulemaking and allows departmental monitoring of compliance.
Revised caregiver’s authorization affidavit and expanded relative consent
Revises the statutory form and statutory mechanics: items 1–4 authorize school enrollment and school‑related medical care; if the caregiver is a qualifying relative and completes items 5–8, they obtain the same medical and dental consent rights normally reserved for guardians (subject to Probate Code limits on mental health treatment). The amendment clarifies identification options, requires boxed, bold warnings about criminal penalties for false statements, instructs caregivers to notify providers if the child stops living with them, and preserves the provider immunity for good‑faith reliance on a substantially completed affidavit.
Daycare privacy duties, reporting, and AG model policies for child care
Adds a child‑care chapter that mirrors school protections: licensed child daycare facilities and license‑exempt state preschools may not collect citizenship or immigration status information except as legally required, must first use emergency contact instructions before contacting CPS when a parent is unavailable, and must request parents to update emergency contacts. Licensees must report requests for immigration‑enforcement information or access to the State Department of Social Services and the Attorney General (or to the State Department of Education for license‑exempt preschools). The AG must publish model policies by April 1, 2026; state departments must notify providers and preschool programs must adopt the policies by July 1, 2026. DSS may apply interim licensing standards while formal regulations are adopted.
Temporary joint guardianship for custodial parent and nominee, confidentiality rules
Modifies guardianship nomination rules to permit, at the court’s discretion, appointment of joint guardians consisting of the custodial parent and a nominated person when the custodial parent is temporarily unavailable for enumerated reasons (including immigration administrative actions). The statute treats absence as a permissible condition delaying nomination effectiveness and offers a presumption that termination of the joint guardianship is in the child’s best interest once the parent’s availability is restored. It mandates confidentiality for all records related to these joint‑guardian proceedings, requires clerks to limit access, and bars disclosure to immigration enforcement without a court order.
Findings to justify restricted public access and mandate reimbursement language
Contains legislative findings required by the California Constitution to justify limiting public access to specified court and administrative records on privacy grounds. It also addresses state‑mandated local program reimbursement: the bill states no reimbursement is required where the bill expands perjury because that creates or changes a crime, but leaves open reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds other mandated costs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children facing short‑term separation: Gains quicker access to school enrollment, health care, and continuity of caregiving by reducing provider uncertainty about affidavits and by enabling temporary guardianship arrangements without disruptive custody transfers.
- Relative caregivers who live with children: Gains clearer legal authority (when they complete the expanded affidavit items) to consent to medical, dental, and certain mental‑health services—reducing refusals from schools and providers.
- Custodial parents planning for temporary absence: Keeps parents legally connected to their children by allowing courts to name a joint guardian with the parent, preserving parental rights and smoothing transitions during detention, hospitalization, or deployment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies (school districts, county offices, charter schools): Must adopt, post, translate, and periodically update model policies, respond to monitoring/auditing, and train staff on warrant/subpoena procedures and emergency‑contact protocols — all administrative work that may require funding.
- Licensed child daycare facilities and license‑exempt preschools: Face new reporting obligations to state agencies for law‑enforcement requests, must ensure confidentiality practices, solicit updated emergency contacts, and adopt AG model policies (with possible interim licensing standard compliance), creating operational and recordkeeping burdens.
- State agencies and courts: The Department of Justice, State Department of Social Services, State Department of Education, and probate clerks must implement, notify, and restrict access to records, which will require procedural changes and possibly new resources to manage confidential files and interim standards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill centers on a fundamental trade‑off: protect children and immigrant families from disruptive enforcement actions by keeping records and caregiving arrangements private and legally recognized, versus ensuring accountability and access for legitimate investigations and preventing misuse of expanded caregiver and guardianship authorities — a balance that forces courts, schools, and agencies to choose between privacy‑centered protection and the practical needs of public‑safety oversight.
The bill packs several competing priorities into one package, and those tensions create implementation challenges. First, the confidentiality rules for joint‑guardian proceedings and limits on school and daycare disclosures are intentionally broad to protect families from immigration enforcement, but they also raise questions about how schools, child‑care licensors, and courts should verify safety concerns or respond to legitimate law‑enforcement investigations — especially when the statute permits disclosure only under a court order.
Agencies will need clear internal procedures for evaluating requests and for when to seek judicial process, and local officials will face pressure to balance child safety obligations with privacy protections.
Second, expanding the caregiver affidavit’s power for relatives reduces barriers for many families, but it increases the stakes of fraudulent or mistaken affidavits: the statute tethers false statements to perjury, which may deter misuse but could also deter otherwise well‑intentioned caregivers from completing the form if they fear criminal exposure or lack government‑issued ID. Providers’ good‑faith immunity eases this risk, but it does not eliminate provider uncertainty about what constitutes a 'substantially completed' form.
Finally, the statutory scheme includes multiple conditional versions of the Education Code amendments that depend on sequencing with AB 49 and AB 419; that creates short‑term legal uncertainty for districts and providers until the operative variant is determined and could complicate training and policy rollout.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.