The Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education on Aug. 21 adopted a resolution opposing Assembly Bill 495, known in the meeting as the Family Preparedness Act, by a 4-0 vote.

The resolution, introduced as “resolution 2025-2026‑12 opposing assembly bill 495 to defend parental rights in education,” drew public comment both for and against the bill before the board adopted it. Board President Sonia Shaw opened debate and said she authored the resolution.

The item matters because the resolution expresses the board’s formal opposition to state legislation that, according to speakers and board members during the meeting, would expand who can sign caregiver authorization affidavits for children in emergencies.

Board members moved and seconded the resolution and voted unanimously. Mr. Naugh made the motion to adopt the resolution and Mr. Cervantes seconded it. The motion passed with all four members present voting yes.

Public commenters sharply disagreed about the bill’s purpose and effects. Lisa G, a member of the public, urged the board to consider the bill’s stated aim and called public fears “harmful fear mongering,” saying, “The Family Preparedness Act is aimed at helping California families make caregiving arrangements for their children during time of crisis.” Paul Griffin, another speaker, urged board caution while offering practical steps schools could take if the law changes, suggesting background checks and asking students whether they know the adult seeking custody: “We can do the background checks. We can send someone from the school ... Are you okay with that? And if they're okay with it, you know that that person is safe.”

Board President Sonia Shaw framed her opposition in safety terms and said the existing affidavits already allow unsupervised signatures and that the new law would further expand access without parental signature, calling it “a predator's dream” as stated in the meeting transcript. During board discussion, members expressed concern about student safety and administrative burden if the law passed.

The board did not direct staff to implement new procedures at the meeting nor did it adopt an enforcement policy tied to the resolution; the action taken was the adoption of the opposition resolution itself.

The resolution and the 4-0 vote now appear on the district’s record for this meeting. The board handled related procedural votes without amendments or split votes and closed the item after registering the unanimous vote.

Ending: The resolution records the board’s formal opposition; any operational changes the district may take if AB 495 becomes law were not made at this meeting and would require separate action or staff direction.