Assembly Bill 495 takes an already flawed law that undermines parental rights in education and medical decision-making—and makes it worse. Current law already leaves the door open to overreach by hostile relatives; AB 495 would throw that door wide open.
SEPT. 19 UPDATE:
Since this article was published, A.B. 495 has been amended and is currently awaiting consideration by Governor Gavin Newsom.
The amendments to A.B. 495 were significant and indicate that the California legislature had heard at least some of the concerns raised by millions of Californians. Among other changes, the “nonrelative extended family member” provision was removed.
However, other concerning provisions remained in the bill, including leaving “unable to contact” undefined, which means that even a short delay in reaching a parent could give others power over their child. And the expansion of the definition of “relative” continues a trend in California of weakening parental rights.
Additionally, the legislature’s amendments to A.B. 495 did not address the underlying constitutional issues that have remained in the law since it was first passed in 1994.
You can read the final version of A.B. 495 as passed by the California Legislature here.
Why AB 495 Is Dangerous
AB 495 is being promoted as a compassionate fix for families in crisis when a parent is detained or deported. But the bill’s text doesn’t limit its use to immigration-related emergencies—it could apply in any situation that meets its broad definitions.
The measure would:
- Greatly enlarge the definition of “relative” to include kin as distant as the fifth degree—such as second cousins, great-great aunts and uncles, and their descendants.
- Create an entirely new category of “non-relative extended family member” covering virtually anyone with an “established familial or mentoring relationship” with the child—or even with a relative of the child.
The more people who can purport to step into a parent’s role, the greater the chance for confusion, conflict, or outright misuse—especially if a school, agency, or court treats “unable to contact” as a low bar for bypassing the parent. This undefined phrase could be interpreted so loosely that even brief delays in reaching a parent would allow others to act in their place, including authorizing major medical care.
Key Points—Why HSLDA Opposes AB 495
- Overreach by hostile relatives and even nonrelatives becomes more likely with broader definitions of who can claim parental authority.
- Undefined phrase “unable to contact” could be stretched to mean even brief communication delays.
- No proof is required to verify that the parent entrusted the child to the caregiver.
- Vague language plus broad definitions equals greater risk of court or agency misuse.
- Expands an already constitutionally shaky law instead of fixing its flaws.
The Current Law—and Its Flaws
Since 1994, California’s “caregiver affidavit” law (Family Code § 6550) has let certain adults who live with a child temporarily enroll a child in school and authorizes “relatives,” broadly defined, to consent to medical or dental care—without a formal guardianship. In other words, existing law already allows certain relatives to avoid the formal remedy of legal guardianship to obtain the same legal rights as a parent to authorize medical care of a child.
Under current law, by presenting a statutorily created affidavit to schools or medical providers:
- A caregiver over 18 who lives with the child can enroll her in school and consent to school-related medical care.
- Certain “relative caregivers” could also claim the same authority as a parent to approve medical or dental treatment.
The affidavit must say the parents have been advised and do not object—or that they are “unable to be contacted.” But there’s no requirement to prove the parents placed the child with that person in the first place, and “unable to contact” is undefined. That leaves the door open to overreach if someone, including a hostile relative, uses the affidavit without clear parental consent.
We are not aware of any case where this law has been abused in that way—but the combination of broad authority with vague standards is a constitutional flaw.
What AB 495 Would Do
AB 495 takes these existing weaknesses and widens the opening:
- More potential claimants—far more distant relatives and non-relatives could qualify.
- Looser guardrails—the undefined “unable to contact” standard remains, now with a much larger pool of people who could invoke it.
- Greater risk of misuse—the more people who can claim parental authority, the greater the chance of overreach, particularly in contentious family situations.
Small openings in the law can become wide gateways when vague language meets expansive interpretation. Once that opening exists, courts and agencies can push far beyond what the legislature originally intended.
A Better Path Forward
A more carefully drafted, narrowly drawn statute could meet genuine needs—such as helping children when parents are truly unavailable—without threatening the fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing. That would mean:
- Narrower definitions of “relative” and “non-relative caregiver.”
- Clear proof that the parent entrusted the child to that person.
- A precise definition of “unable to contact” that prevents misuse.