Across the country, parents are waking up to a new generation of laws that move authority over children away from families and toward third parties and the state. California’s Assembly Bill 495, marketed as the “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025,” is a prime example.
Supporters say it helps children when a parent is temporarily absent. Critics warn it opens a door for non-relatives—even bad actors—to step in and make life-altering decisions without meaningful parental oversight. For those who believe, with Scripture, that God entrusts children first to mothers and fathers (Deut. 6:6–7; Eph. 6:4; Prov. 22:6), AB 495 raises urgent red flags.
Be informed, not misled.
The Following was written by Rick Wilson, Sec. Treasurer of Gary Randall Ministries.
Heritage, Daily Signal, and The Free Press: The Principle at Stake
Long before AB 495, conservatives argued that parents—not bureaucracies—are the “ultimate authority on their kids’ education.” As the Heritage Foundation explains, state “Parents’ Bill of Rights” measures exist precisely to affirm that standard. “Fifteen states have already adopted Parents’ Bill of Rights laws that affirm moms and dads as the ultimate authority on their kids’ education,” Heritage writes.
The Daily Signal has sounded specific alarms about AB 495 itself. One analysis warns that “AB 495 grants any adult who claims to know an unrelated minor the right to assert legal custody and medical decision-making over that minor.” (Daily Signal). Another piece calls the bill “worded so loosely that it would give unvetted, non-related individuals broad powers,” creating “a legal pathway for predators.”
Meanwhile, The Free Press has documented California’s broader trend of sidelining parents—“keep[ing] parents in the dark” on critical issues involving their own kids—illustrating a policy climate that should make every voter more vigilant.
What AB 495 Actually Does—and Why Critics Are Concerned
The Legislature’s own analysis says AB 495 would: (1) expand caregiver authorization affidavits to “nonrelative extended family members,” including “any adult caregiver who has an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child,” and (2) create a new, court-recognized joint guardianship that can “activate” when specified events occur (detention, illness, military deployment, etc.).
Supporters say the parent “retains ultimate decision-making authority,” even under an affidavit. But opponents counter that the bill’s broad definitions and activation mechanics can, in practice, let non-relatives step into powerful roles at schools and medical providers—without the kind of close oversight and vetting most parents would expect if a stranger is making decisions for their child.
California Family Council distilled the practical fear in a headline that resonated statewide: “‘Presto, Someone Walks Away with Your Child.’” (California Family Council, July 23, 2025). Pastor Jack Hibbs likewise warned parents to “run with your kids” if the bill passes—underscoring how grave many families view the risks. (California Family Council, Aug. 4, 2025). Fox News highlighted the same alarm in a recent segment with Hibbs describing AB 495 as a “dangerous” custody bill.
Point 1: The Bill’s Design Creates New Avenues for Non-Relatives
A core controversy is the expansion of “nonrelative extended family member” to include any adult with a claimed “mentoring relationship.” On paper, that sounds compassionate. In practice, critics argue it’s vague enough to be exploited by bad actors who can produce an affidavit and act as if they were a guardian, enrolling a child in a new school, accessing records, or consenting to certain services. As the Daily Signal warns, such a structure risks granting “unvetted” adults broad powers over minors.
From a Christian perspective, this is precisely why God gives authority to parents first. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Delegation to trusted family or church is wise in emergencies; replacing the parent with a loosely defined “mentor” is not.
Point 2: “Activation” and the Problem of Real-World Safeguards
AB 495’s joint-guardianship can “activate” upon events like detention, illness, or immigration actions. The analysis says parents keep ultimate authority and can move to terminate the arrangement when the crisis ends. The concern is operational: once a non-relative has paper in hand, how easily can a rushed school office, clinic, or agency verify authenticity, check parental wishes, and detect exploitation? In chaotic moments, process failures are precisely when predators strike.
As The Free Press has reported in adjacent battles, California has repeatedly prioritized policies that sideline parents “in the dark.” That pattern compounds parents' distrust when new pathways for third-party control over kids are introduced.
Point 3: Voices on the Right Are Warning—Loudly
The California Family Council’s reporting has galvanized thousands of parents. “‘Presto, Someone Walks Away with Your Child’” is not hyperbole to them; it captures a plausible misuse scenario they believe legislators have not closed. Pastor Jack Hibbs urged, “If AB 495 passes, run with your kids.” Fox News featured Hibbs calling the bill “dangerous.” And The Daily Signal’s reporting frames AB 495 as a “legal pathway for predators.”
Heritage’s wider principle is the North Star here: policy should reaffirm—never dilute—that parents are the primary decision-makers. (Heritage Foundation). The Heritage Foundation
What Voters Should Do—Now
First, read the text and committee analysis for yourself. Note how broad the “nonrelative extended family member” category is and how activation works. Second, hear both sides—but weigh the risks to your children, not the talking points. Third, tell your senator where you stand. Fourth, support ministries, churches, and civic groups that help families prepare lawful, trustworthy contingencies led by real relatives—or deeply vetted guardians—without ceding parental authority.
Biblical Grounding
Scripture is not vague about who is responsible for children’s nurture and formation: “These words…you shall teach them diligently to your children” (Deut. 6:6-7). “Train up a child in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6). Civil law should protect that design, not create loopholes for strangers to claim control. Christians are called to love the vulnerable; that includes guarding children from those who would exploit legal gaps.
Takeaway
AB 495 is not well-intentioned, but even if it were, intention is not protection. By broadening who can act “as family” and by streamlining activation during crises, the bill risks handing decisive authority over children to non-relatives—including, in worst-case scenarios, predators.
How many times have we seen laws passed by left-leaning politicians that sound “compassionate” or “fair”, but end up damaging our moral, cultural, or family structure, while adding more power to the government?
Conservatives and Christians should insist on reforms that (1) require true kinship or rigorous vetting, (2) mandate real-time parental notice/consent and verification, and (3) restore the default: parents first.
As Heritage puts it, policy must affirm moms and dads as the “ultimate authority” over their children. (Heritage Foundation). Voters should be informed, not misled—and ready to act.
Be Informed. Be Engaged. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.