Three bills undermining parental rights moving forward in California

California legislators are working to move forward three bills whose effect—if not overt intent—will be to undermine parental rights.

AB495, the “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025,” cleared third reading in the California State Assembly on June 3rd by a 62-7 vote and is pending in the Senate. It would enable “nonrelative extended family member” to sign a model “Caregiver’s Authorization Certificate” allowing them to make decisions about a child, including enrolling/dis-enrolling a child in school, picking the child up from school, and consenting to medical treatment for the minor.

The model certificate explicitly says three times that parental signature is not required.

Critics of the bill, including the California Family Council, say it subverts parental rights by allowing other adults to substitute consent for a parent’s. They paint a picture of a legally broad takeover of parents’ rights by third parties.

Assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez (D-San Fernando), the bill’s sponsor, claims AB495 is the target of a “fear-mongering” campaign. She insists she is not out to usurp parental rights. Her “preparedness plan” aims simply to authorize somebody to act on a minor’s behalf if the parents are impeded from doing so. What she probably means is if the parents are detained as illegal aliens by federal authorities. California is the state with the largest population of illegal aliens in the country.

Opponents of the bill are not buying her assertion. They note that the current affidavit makes no reference to parental signatures being unrequired, but the revised form makes that clear three times. The bill’s advocates claim it has nothing to do with who can pick a child up from school, even though 21-year-old standing guidance from the California School Boards Association says a child can be released to persons designated by parents or “to any individual who presents a caregiver’s authorization certificate.”

Advocates also claim that AB495’s authorization for a non-parental “caregiver” certificate holder to pursue medical treatment for a child is necessitated by the fact that, under current law, some school districts would not honor the certificate for medical purposes absent parental approval. The effect of AB495 is to force statewide honoring of such certificates without recourse to a parent for consent or even knowledge.

A second bill, AB1084, expedites the process of name changes for minors who believe their current name does not reflect their “gender identity”.

Introduced by Los Angeles Democrat Rick Chavez Zbur, the bill directs California courts to grant a name change and alter vital records documents within two weeks if both parents have countersigned the court petition. If, however, only one parent signed the petition, AB1084 makes clear the other living parent cannot block the request. The court is directed to serve the petition on the non-signatory parent. If it cannot find that parent, a court can waive the requirement if some other procedure “is reasonably calculated” to give “actual notice.”

The bill makes clear that the default position is that name change petitions are to be granted except where “good cause to oppose the name change” occurs. Lest anyone have doubts, the bill explicitly deems parental objection to “gender transition” not to constitute “good cause.” “Objections based solely on concerns that the proposed change is not the petitioner’s actual gender identity or gender assigned at birth,” the bill states, “shall not constitute good cause.”

In practice, it would be difficult to imagine what would constitute a prohibitive “good cause.” In cases where one parent does not cosign the name change petition, the court is allowed up to six weeks to grant the change.

There are four possible objections to AB1084.

First, the bill denies the science and endorses disinformation by changing official government documents to pretend that sex is something “assigned.”

Second, why the rush? At age 18, a person can legally change their name without parental consent.

Third, is the bill constitutional? Judicial precedent affirms parental rights as tied up with the right to direct a child’s upbringing. AB1084 introduces the state as a co-parent, trampling real parents’ rights because California has a different gender ideology vision for a child’s upbringing.

Fourth, AB1084 destabilizes marriage. In cases where conflict over name change arises within a marriage, California inserts itself into the spousal/parental relationship by taking sides. This mirrors practice in gender ideology states where non-“gender affirming” parents are deemed unfit and usually deprived of parental rights (though rarely obligations).

Finally, the third bill, AB727, is being pushed by Los Angeles Democrat Assembly Majority Whip Mark Gonzalez with Governor Newsom’s backing. Currently, California school identification cards for students in grades 7-12 include the number for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. AB 727 would require those cards also to carry the number for the “Trevor Project LGBTQ+ Suicide Hotline”.

The Trevor Project is a private, explicitly pro-gender ideology resource. Critics have questioned the practice of putting young people in touch with such organizations without parental consent or awareness, asking about the trafficking and grooming possibilities such contacts open up. Using the fear-mongering tactic of “suicide prevention,” AB727 puts the state’s thumb on gender ideology issues by mandating government-issued documents (student IDs) to connect minors, without seeking parental consent, to such private advocacy groups.

The California Family Council and evangelical groups have taken leadership roles in opposing all three bills.

An August 25 search of the California Catholic Conference’s website saw no mention of AB495 or 1084 and appears to be neutral on AB727.