California Proposal Further Erodes Parents’ Rights | The American Spectator

California’s Family Preparedness Plan Act (AB 495), a proposed California law triggered by the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, is purportedly intended to provide children with a safety net if their parents or legal guardians become suddenly unavailable due to emergencies such as hospitalization, incarceration, or immigration-related detention. While the bill is promoted as a compassionate and practical response to crisis situations, its underlying structure threatens to undermine core parental rights and expose children to an array of unintended risks if left uncorrected.

Central to AB 495’s mechanism is the Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit. Under the proposed law, any adult could submit this affidavit, checking a box to state they “have advised the parent(s) or other person(s) having legal custody of the minor of my intent to authorize medical care, and have received no objection.” Once the form is signed, dated, and turned in, the caregiver is empowered to enroll a child in school, make school-related decisions, and — if they qualify as a relative or nonrelative extended family member — consent to medical or dental care on the child’s behalf.

What is deeply concerning, however, is that no meaningful verification is required to determine whether the parent has been notified or whether the child is genuinely living with the caregiver. Under the bill, schools and healthcare providers receive legal protection if they act “in good faith” based on the affidavit, with no obligation to contact, notify, or verify with the parent before the form is accepted.

This gap in oversight means that a person could exercise control over a child’s education and health care without the parent’s consent or knowledge, at least for a crucial period before the parent finds out. Even though the authority granted is technically limited — falling short of legal custody or guardianship — the span of time between the affidavit’s submission and the parent’s discovery creates significant risk.

During this interval, caregivers could approve school enrollment, authorize routine healthcare, and make other day-to-day decisions, all without the parent’s immediate involvement. If and when a parent learns of the affidavit, they retain the ability to revoke it and reassert their authority, but whatever actions have already been taken — whether it’s a medical procedure or information withheld from the parent — cannot always be undone.

Proponents of AB 495 may argue that such flexibility is crucial in emergencies, where immediate care for a child is paramount. But the bill’s current language lowers safeguards far beyond what’s justifiable. It grants practical authority to caregivers based solely on their attestation of parental notice, requires no residency verification, and provides only after-the-fact remedies for parents — rather than proactive protection against misuse.

At a time when California’s legislative direction increasingly favors state access to family decision-making, this proposal risks becoming yet another step toward routine erosion of parental rights. In a just legal system, policy should assume that parents act in their child’s best interests, except where there is well-substantiated evidence to the contrary.

The solution is not to abandon emergency flexibility, but to strengthen the guardrails. If AB 495 is to move forward, lawmakers must make changes. Schools and providers should be required to make concrete, documented efforts to contact the parent or legal guardian before accepting a new affidavit, except in indisputable emergencies. There should be a system for real-time notification — by text, email, or phone — every time an affidavit is filed. Basic checks, such as verifying the child’s residence by documented address, would reduce the potential for false affidavits. Affidavit authority should expire after a brief window unless reaffirmed with renewed parental contact. Civil and criminal penalties for misrepresentation or fraud must have teeth, and provider “good faith” protections should depend on fulfilling the new notification and verification requirements.

Even now, parents can take proactive steps to guard against this risk — by making their wishes clear in writing to schools and healthcare providers, keeping emergency contacts up to date, and requesting notification of any third-party attempts to gain temporary authority over their child. Nonetheless, no amount of personal vigilance can substitute for a robust legal framework that prioritizes the family’s rights from the outset.

Ultimately, while AB 495’s intent may be to protect children in times of uncertainty, its execution must not come at the expense of parental knowledge, trust, and authority. Temporary gaps in parental oversight — even with the best of intentions — can lead to confusion, mistreatment, and lasting harm. California legislators should seize this opportunity to further amend the bill, mandating mandatory parent contact attempts, instant notification, meaningful residency checks, short validity periods, and serious accountability measures for false statements.

California’s families deserve a law that safeguards children without sidelining parents. AB 495, in its current form, falls short of that promise. The state’s leaders now face a critical choice: will they reinforce parents’ rights as the foundation of child safety, or will they continue down a path that undermines the authority and trust of California parents.

READ MORE from Walter Myers:

Blacks Need High Quality Education, Not a DEI Agenda

READ MORE on California:

Test for Newsom as Dems Target Charters

Walter Myers III is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute.