California 20252026 Regular Session Status: To Executive 1 D cosponsors

AB 495 — Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 664, Statutes of 2025.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced February 10, 2025. It awaits signature.

Next likely step: the executive signs it into law or issues a veto.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 64% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • To Executive

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 10 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Under existing law, a caregiver who is 18 years of age or older and signs a caregiver's authorization affidavit under penalty of perjury for a minor who lives in their home is authorized to enroll the minor in school and consent to school-related medical care on behalf of the minor. Under existing law, a caregiver who is 18 years of age or older, signs the caregiver's authorization affidavit under penalty of perjury, and who is a certain type of relative of the minor who lives in their home, has the same rights to authorize medical care and dental care for the minor that are given to guardians, as specified. Under existing law, a person who acts in good faith reliance on a completed caregiver's authorization affidavit to provide medical or dental care, without actual knowledge of facts contrary to those stated on the affidavit, is not subject to criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action for that reliance, but is not relieved from liability for violations of other provisions of law. This bill, the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, would revise the definition of relative to expand the type of relative who is authorized to execute a caregiver's authorization affidavit and grant them the same rights to authorize school-related medical care, as defined, for the minor that are given to guardians, as specified. By expanding who is authorized to sign a caregiver's authorization affidavit for these purposes under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill would amend the statutory form for a caregiver's authorization affidavit. (2) Existing law generally provides for the establishment and administration of guardianships. Existing law authorizes a court to appoint joint guardians of a person, an estate, or a person and an estate. Existing law requires a nomination of a guardian to become effective when made, and remain effective, unless stated otherwise in writing, as specified. This bill would authorize a court, in its discretion, to appoint a custodial parent and a person nominated by the custodial parent as joint guardians of the person of the minor, if the custodial parent will be temporarily unavailable due to specified circumstances, including, among other things, an immigration-related administrative action, as specified. The bill would make all records, petitions, orders, and documents related to these proceedings confidential, as specified. The bill would provide that absence is a basis for a delayed effectiveness of a guardianship and that such circumstances would not be a basis for subsequent legal incapacity for the nomination. (3) Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a local educational agency, as defined, from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members. Existing law requires the governing board or body of a local educational agency to perform specified actions relating to pupils and immigration status, including, among others, providing information to parents and guardians, as appropriate, regarding their child's right to a free public education, regardless of immigration status or religious beliefs. Existing law requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, as specified. Existing law requires all local educational agencies to adopt the model policies developed by the Attorney General, or equivalent policies, by July 1, 2018. This bill would revise the information disclosure requirements to require the governing board or body of a local educational agency to provide information related to specified guidance on immigration enforcement issued by the Attorney General and would require that information to be revised as necessary to be consistent with any revisions or updates to the Attorney General's guidance. This bill would also require local educational agencies to revise their model policies as necessary to be consistent with any revisions or updates to the model policies developed by the Attorney General, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of child daycare facilities, including daycare centers and daycare homes, by the State Department of Social Services. The act exempts certain types of facilities from licensure under its provisions, including California state preschool programs that meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the programs are operated by local educational agencies in a school building. Similar to the provisions related to local educational agencies described above, this bill would prohibit licensed child daycare facilities, as defined, employees of licensed child daycare facilities, and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of children or their family members, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program. The bill would require the licensee or administrator of a licensed child day care facility, as applicable, to report to the department and the Attorney General any requests for information or access to the facility by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency. The bill would authorize license-exempt California state preschool program facilities to make that report to the State Department of Education and the Attorney General. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to provide any information on California state preschool programs collected pursuant to those provisions to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The bill would require a licensed child daycare facility and a license-exempt California state preschool program facility to first exhaust any parental instruction relating to the child's care found in the child's emergency contact information if an employee of the facility is aware that a child's parent or authorized representative is not available to care for the child. The bill would require licensees or administrators of those facilities to request that parents or authorized representatives update their emergency contact information. The bill would require the Attorney General, by April 1, 2026, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at child daycare facilities and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities similar to the model policies developed for local educational agencies described above. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to inform licensed daycare facilities, and the State Department of Education to inform license-exempt California state preschool program facilities, of the model policies. The bill would require all California state preschool programs to adopt the model policies developed by the Attorney General, or equivalent policies, as soon as possible, but in no event later than July 1, 2026. The bill would require California state preschool programs to update these policies to conform with any revisions or updates to the model policies developed by the Attorney General. The bill would require a licensed child daycare facility and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities to provide the parent or authorized representative with information about how to access those model policies. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to inform licensed child day care facilities, and the State Department of Education to inform license-exempt California state preschool program facilities, of any revisions or updates to the model policies and require any information, policies, or guidance provided by facilities to parents or authorized representatives to be updated to include any revisions or updates to the model policies issued by the Attorney General. The bill would authorize the State Department of Social Services to administer these provisions by interim licensing standards until regulations are adopted. (5) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (6) Existing constitutional provisions require a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 234.7 of the Education Code proposed by AB 49, AB 419, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 49, AB 419, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 664, Statutes of 2025.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Enrolled measure version corrected.

  5. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 60. Noes 20. Page 3317.).

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 29. Noes 10. Page 2834.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 29).

  12. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  13. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (July 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HUMAN S. (Ayes 11. Noes 2.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.

  16. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUMAN S.

  17. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  18. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 62. Noes 7. Page 1986.)

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (May 23).

  21. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

  22. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Coauthors revised.

  24. Measure version as amended on April 23 corrected.

  25. Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. Read second time and amended.

  27. Coauthors revised.

  28. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  29. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  30. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  31. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  32. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUM. S.

  33. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  34. From printer. May be heard in committee March 13.

  35. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 30 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 60 Yea · 20 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 59000
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 02000
Total 602000
% of votes cast 75%25%0%0%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Castillo, Leticia Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
DeMaio, Carl Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Ellis, Stan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Nay
Hadwick, Heather Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Nay
Johnson, Natasha Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 29 Yea · 10 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 29001
Republican 01000
Total 291001
% of votes cast 73%25%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Not Voting
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 11 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 0200
Total 11200
% of votes cast 85%15%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 62 Yea · 7 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 59000
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 27010
Total 627010
% of votes cast 78%9%0%13%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
DeMaio, Carl Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Ellis, Stan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Not Voting
Hadwick, Heather Republican Not Voting
Hoover, Josh Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 0301
Total 11301
% of votes cast 73%20%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 5 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Republican 0101
Total 5101
% of votes cast 71%14%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Republican 0102
Total 9102
% of votes cast 75%8%0%17%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Not Voting
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 495 do?
(1) Under existing law, a caregiver who is 18 years of age or older and signs a caregiver's authorization affidavit under penalty of perjury for a minor who lives in their home is authorized to enroll the minor in school and consent to school-related medical care on behalf of the minor. Under existing law, a caregiver who is 18 years of age or older, signs the caregiver's authorization affidavit under penalty of perjury, and who is a certain type of relative of the minor who lives in their home, has the same rights to authorize medical care and dental care for the minor that are given to guardians, as specified. Under existing law, a person who acts in good faith reliance on a completed caregiver's authorization affidavit to provide medical or dental care, without actual knowledge of facts contrary to those stated on the affidavit, is not subject to criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action for that reliance, but is not relieved from liability for violations of other provisions of law. This bill, the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, would revise the definition of relative to expand the type of relative who is authorized to execute a caregiver's authorization affidavit and grant them the same rights to authorize school-related medical care, as defined, for the minor that are given to guardians, as specified. By expanding who is authorized to sign a caregiver's authorization affidavit for these purposes under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill would amend the statutory form for a caregiver's authorization affidavit. (2) Existing law generally provides for the establishment and administration of guardianships. Existing law authorizes a court to appoint joint guardians of a person, an estate, or a person and an estate. Existing law requires a nomination of a guardian to become effective when made, and remain effective, unless stated otherwise in writing, as specified. This bill would authorize a court, in its discretion, to appoint a custodial parent and a person nominated by the custodial parent as joint guardians of the person of the minor, if the custodial parent will be temporarily unavailable due to specified circumstances, including, among other things, an immigration-related administrative action, as specified. The bill would make all records, petitions, orders, and documents related to these proceedings confidential, as specified. The bill would provide that absence is a basis for a delayed effectiveness of a guardianship and that such circumstances would not be a basis for subsequent legal incapacity for the nomination. (3) Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a local educational agency, as defined, from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members. Existing law requires the governing board or body of a local educational agency to perform specified actions relating to pupils and immigration status, including, among others, providing information to parents and guardians, as appropriate, regarding their child's right to a free public education, regardless of immigration status or religious beliefs. Existing law requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, as specified. Existing law requires all local educational agencies to adopt the model policies developed by the Attorney General, or equivalent policies, by July 1, 2018. This bill would revise the information disclosure requirements to require the governing board or body of a local educational agency to provide information related to specified guidance on immigration enforcement issued by the Attorney General and would require that information to be revised as necessary to be consistent with any revisions or updates to the Attorney General's guidance. This bill would also require local educational agencies to revise their model policies as necessary to be consistent with any revisions or updates to the model policies developed by the Attorney General, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of child daycare facilities, including daycare centers and daycare homes, by the State Department of Social Services. The act exempts certain types of facilities from licensure under its provisions, including California state preschool programs that meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the programs are operated by local educational agencies in a school building. Similar to the provisions related to local educational agencies described above, this bill would prohibit licensed child daycare facilities, as defined, employees of licensed child daycare facilities, and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of children or their family members, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program. The bill would require the licensee or administrator of a licensed child day care facility, as applicable, to report to the department and the Attorney General any requests for information or access to the facility by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency. The bill would authorize license-exempt California state preschool program facilities to make that report to the State Department of Education and the Attorney General. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to provide any information on California state preschool programs collected pursuant to those provisions to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The bill would require a licensed child daycare facility and a license-exempt California state preschool program facility to first exhaust any parental instruction relating to the child's care found in the child's emergency contact information if an employee of the facility is aware that a child's parent or authorized representative is not available to care for the child. The bill would require licensees or administrators of those facilities to request that parents or authorized representatives update their emergency contact information. The bill would require the Attorney General, by April 1, 2026, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at child daycare facilities and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities similar to the model policies developed for local educational agencies described above. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to inform licensed daycare facilities, and the State Department of Education to inform license-exempt California state preschool program facilities, of the model policies. The bill would require all California state preschool programs to adopt the model policies developed by the Attorney General, or equivalent policies, as soon as possible, but in no event later than July 1, 2026. The bill would require California state preschool programs to update these policies to conform with any revisions or updates to the model policies developed by the Attorney General. The bill would require a licensed child daycare facility and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities to provide the parent or authorized representative with information about how to access those model policies. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to inform licensed child day care facilities, and the State Department of Education to inform license-exempt California state preschool program facilities, of any revisions or updates to the model policies and require any information, policies, or guidance provided by facilities to parents or authorized representatives to be updated to include any revisions or updates to the model policies issued by the Attorney General. The bill would authorize the State Department of Social Services to administer these provisions by interim licensing standards until regulations are adopted. (5) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (6) Existing constitutional provisions require a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 234.7 of the Education Code proposed by AB 49, AB 419, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 49, AB 419, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Who sponsors AB 495?
AB 495 is sponsored by Rodriguez, Celeste (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 495?
This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced February 10, 2025. It awaits signature.
Where can I track AB 495?
Track AB 495 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 495

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 495

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →