California Bill Opens The Door For State-Sanctioned Child Trafficking, Trusted Ministry Leader Calls Christians To Action

California Pastor Jack Hibbs called on his congregation at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills to voice opposition to an “unthinkable” new bill that would have disastrous repercussions for children in the state.

“For years, we have been telling you about bad bills that they have been doing—this takes the cake,” Hibbs underscored during the Wednesday night study at his church.

Those who introduced the bill have branded AB 495 as a response to family separations faced by illegal immigrants detained and deported by ICE agents. AB 495, titled the “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025″ by its authors, streamlines the process of obtaining custody over a child to an extreme degree and would not solely be applied to children of illegal aliens.

The bill would broadly pave the way for any adult to take custody and make medical decisions for a minor, with or without the knowledge of a parent, by signing a single document.

Attorney Erin Friday described the significant ramifications of the bill, calling it “a child trafficker’s and kidnapper’s dream bill.”

“There is no background check, no welfare check, no court oversight, and no verification,” she underscored. “All you need is a piece of paper and some form of identification, with no obligation for the adult handing the child over to verify the identification, and presto, someone walks away with your child. We’re talking about a legal pathway for predators to operate in plain sight. This bill is not about immigration—it’s about relinquishing parental rights to unvetted strangers under the guise of compassion.”

Here’s what the bill actually says and does:

“LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 495, as amended, Celeste Rodriguez. Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025.
(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 expand the type of person who is authorized to execute a caregiver’s authorization affidavit to include a “nonrelative extended family member,” as defined, 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 day care facilities, including day care centers and day care homes, by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, willful violation of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.
Similar to the provisions related to local educational agencies described above, this bill would prohibit licensed child day care facilities, as defined, and employees of licensed child day care 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 owner, operator, 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 for the purpose of enforcing the immigration laws in a manner that ensures the confidentiality and privacy of any potentially identifying information. The bill would require a licensed child day care 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 a licensed child day care facility is aware that a child’s parent or guardian is not available to care for the child. The bill would encourage facilities to work with parents or guardians to 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 day care facilities similar to the model policies developed for local educational agencies described above. The bill would require all licensed child day care facilities 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 licensed day care facilities to update these policies to conform with any revisions or updates to the model policies developed by the Attorney General. Upon enrolling or reenrolling any child, the bill would require a licensed child day care facility to provide the parent or guardian with written information relating to the model policies developed by the Attorney General described above, including, but not limited to, information related to family safety plans and the importance of completing and maintaining emergency contact information. The bill would require the provided information to be updated to include any revisions or updates to the model policies issued by the Attorney General. Because a violation of these provisions by a licensed day care facility would constitute a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)
(5) 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.

(5)
(6) 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.”

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.