Immigrant caregiver bill stalls amid clash over trans kids' rights

A bill meant to ensure children are cared for if their parents are suddenly deported has unexpectedly become entangled in the fight over trans children.

AB 495 would make it easier for parents to designate another caregiver for their children, including a non-family member. But several conservative groups testified in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday that they believe the law is unconstitutional, endangers children and would be defeated in court if signed.

Aware of the recent controversy around the bill, Committee Chair Anna Caballero, D-Merced, warned speakers to confine their comments to potential fiscal problems it could cause. She noted the committee flags potentially expensive legislation and is not concerned with other policy issues.

Greg Burt, vice president of California Family Council, obliged.

"What I'm going to talk about today is regarding cost," Burt said. "It is about the legal implications of this bill and how defending the lawsuits is going to come out as a result. I'm going to talk about why it is unconstitutional."

Burt said AB 495 would make changes to California's caregiver authorization affidavit. This is a legal document that allows a caregiver who is not the child's parent or legal guardian to enroll a child in school and--of special concern to many opponents--consent to medical care.

"AB 495 would allow any unrelated adult who claims a mentoring relationship to pick up your child from school and make medical decisions without parental knowledge or consent," Burt said. "From a constitutional standpoint, this bill is on very shaky ground. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that parents have a fundamental right to the direct care, custody, and education of their children."

Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez, D-Arleta, has been trying for weeks to clarify her legislation's intent. It would require schools and daycare providers to follow policies created by the California Department of Justice. It would also liberalize legal definitions of who could be considered a child's relative and what can be considered "school-related medical care," though the latter focuses on care like vaccinations, not gender-affirming treatments and surgery.

"The cruel and unlawful federal immigration enforcement actions are spreading fear through many communities like mine," she said in an Aug. 8 news release. "Californians are scared to go to work, send their kids to school, or make their medical appointments. I am working on AB 495 with trusted legal attorneys and children's advocates to help families facing family separation make caregiving arrangements."

Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, thanked Rodriguez for bringing up the bill. She added that her parents were Afghan refugees. There was a time in their childhood when they had to look at ways to keep her and her sister in the United States if they were forced to leave.

Several people from immigrants' rights groups spoke in favor of the bill. One woman complained that opponents were photographing and threatening them, leading to jeers from some in the room until Caballero warned she could have people removed.

A majority of members voted to move AB 495 to the suspense file. This is a status where a bill is held for further consideration of its cost. Christian Beltran, legislative director with the California Department of Finance, warned these could be significant--even without litigation. He said the Department of Social Services would need to add up to 29 positions to manage the workload.

"The Department of Finance is opposed because it likely results in significant general fund costs not included in the 2025 Budget Act," Beltran said. "This bill is estimated to result in general fund state operation cost of $5.4 million ongoing."

One of the groups opposing the bill is the Liberty Justice Center. Earlier on Monday morning, its attorneys were at the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, among the groups challenging the title and summary Attorney General Rob Bonta's office wrote for an initiative that would require schools to notify parents if their child changed gender identity at school. The group dropped the effort after losing in Sacramento Superior Court, saying the new title made fundraising too difficult.

"The argument today centered mostly on whether Bonta's summary and title for the Protect Kids initiative, which was renamed 'Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth,' was prejudicial," said Emily Rae, senior counsel at the center, when reached on Monday afternoon.

She said the sides also debated whether the issue was moot. Rae said it was not, because the dispute could come up again in the next election. Protect Kids California v. Bonta, C101480 (Cal. App. 3rd, filed July 1, 2024).

"The goal for Protect Kids California the organization and the goal for the initiative itself is to have enough signatures to get on the November 2026 ballot," Rae said. "In order to do so we need a neutral title and summary."