Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/05/2025 6:09:41 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
California lawmakers are pushing forward with AB 495, a dangerous bill that would allow virtually any adult to take legal responsibility for someone else’s child, without court oversight, background checks, or even the parents’ consent. Disguised as a “Family Preparedness Plan,” the legislation is being marketed as a compassionate fix for immigration-related disruptions.
Under AB 495, any loosely affiliated adult, a neighbor, a church volunteer, even a distant acquaintance, could be given the authority to enroll kids in school, approve medical procedures, and make decisions usually reserved for a legal guardian. No judge would have to approve it, and no agency would have to vet it. This means that no parent would have to sign off. The bill even allows the courts to assign secondary guardians to children when a parent is temporarily unavailable, such as during immigration proceedings, but then goes a step further by sealing those court records, shielding them from public scrutiny.
It gets even worse.
Daycare centers would be forced to adopt “state-approved” anti-cooperation policies with immigration enforcement, effectively turning preschools and childcare facilities into sanctuary zones, even if it puts the child or others at risk. The legislation empowers the state and unvetted adults while marginalizing parents. The California Family Council has described it as a "kidnapper’s dream," because under the law, someone dangerous could gain legal authority over a child through a simple affidavit with no questions asked. This is just the latest example of the Left’s war on the family.
The legislation was introduced in the California Assembly by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D) in February. It has moved swiftly through the legislature, passing the Assembly on June 3 with a 62–7 vote. In the Senate, the bill advanced out of the Judiciary and Human Services Committee on July 1 by a vote of...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
This should be called the “Enable Child trafficking” bill.
If you look up “reprobate” or “depraved” in an honest dictionary it would say: see Democrat party....
Correct, sadly.
They mean California Rats, don’t they?
Outrageous!
Clickbait
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.
Bet you never read the bill ...
Eh, why should anyone have to read anything before pontificating and getting outraged?
Clickbait like this only occurs because way too many people are much more interested in pontificating than in reading/learning/investigating to discern the truth.
The government owning the children is slavery.
No problem. If you take the parents out of the care scheme, then they are not responsible for care, or taxes, and the children will be remanded to juvenile facilities as a ward of the state. Then the state, with no money coming in, will be answerable for their growth, safety, and education. Can’t have one without the other.
wy69
This might hurt Demoncrats.
The African saying meant the whole village would lovingly help the two parents as they raised the children, supplying what the children needed and being there in times of crisis or poverty.
Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” meant the Marxist state would shape the minds and political biases of the children and turn them against the nuclear family. Lenin said give me the children....
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
—Vladimir Lenin
”Yeah, they’re way ahead, out there.”
Nope!
Are you implying that the title is not true?
Egad!
I’m going to have to change my approach if those titles have been lying to me all this time...😎
if the custodial parent will be temporarily unavailable due to specified circumstances,
/
Ya, like not being told the local library trans twerking pedophile is confiscating their kid without their knowledge while they are at work or taking a crap.
if the custodial parent will be temporarily unavailable due to specified circumstances,
/
Ya, like not being told the local library trans twerking pedophile is confiscating their kid without their knowledge while they are at work or taking a crap.
Got a particular kid you’re interested in Bruce ?
You seem enthusiastic for this bill.
Just saying
If you never watched his podcast, you should...
I haven't read the bill, so I haven't commented on its merits at all. However, I understand that the idea of actually reading something before opining on it is shocking to lazy semi-literates such as yourself. And that's what I commented on - the frustration that comes from trying to discuss things with people too lazy even to read what they're arguing about.
That being said, this article is crap, and I know that without even reading the bill. How do I know that? From this part of the article:
"Under AB 495, any loosely affiliated adult, a neighbor, a church volunteer, even a distant acquaintance, could be given the authority...."
And stop right there. First question that popped into my mind when reading this was "given the authority by whom?? Isn't that kind of the whole issue? So I read the whole blurb, then clicked on the full article, read both and guess what? The writer never tells you who has this authority under this bill..
That's either pure journalistic incompetence, or clickbait where the writer knows that answering that rather obvious question would ruin the "pull" of the article.
Maybe this law is horrible, maybe it's not. I have no idea because the article is crap, and I personally have not read the bill. But what I do know is those people who have gotten all outraged over this crap article, and without having read the actual bill themselves, are lazy morons.
Clear enough for you, Sparky?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.