Appropriations committee hears hours of testimony on AB 495; panel refers bill to suspense file

The California State Senate Committee on Appropriations heard extensive public testimony on AB 495, an Assembly bill by Celeste Rodriguez that would revise the caregiver authorization affidavit and related protections for children, and the committee moved the bill to the suspense file for further fiscal review.

Supporters and opponents told the committee to focus on fiscal and safety concerns. Christian Belcher of the Department of Finance told the committee the bill likely "results in significant general fund costs not included in the 2025 budget act," estimating about $5,400,000 ongoing to the Department of Social Services for 29 positions and noting additional, unquantified costs for the Department of Education and possible trial-court impacts. After public testimony and brief discussion, the chair announced, "This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 495 will move to suspense."

Committee members said the panel was acting on fiscal grounds. Chair Senator Wahab said the Appropriations Committee is focused on costs and that most items on the agenda would be reviewed in the next two weeks to decide whether they leave suspense.

Public testimony was lengthy and sharply divided. Greg Burr, vice president of the California Family Council, testified in opposition on constitutional and legal grounds, saying the bill's revised caregiver authorization affidavit "clearly states 3 times that a parent's signature or a court seal is not required" and warning of litigation and costs to districts and the state. "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," Burr said.

Monica Madrid, state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and a bill supporter, spoke for civil-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups and asked the committee to consider the bill's protections for children separated from parents. Pamela Gibbs of the Los Angeles County Office of Education said the bill could produce "cost savings due to clarity of the provisions provided in the bill," and asked members to consider enrollment and program stability in districts serving immigrant families.

Opponents raised both safety and fiscal arguments. Several speakers, including Denise Aguilar and others identifying as parents, said the bill lacked "guardrails" for vetting caregivers and warned that schools or districts could face expensive investigations or legal claims if the law increased the risk of child abuse or trafficking. Supporters described the bill as clarifying access and services for children without parental presence.

Why it matters: The Appropriations Committee reviews fiscal impact rather than policy merits; moving AB 495 to the suspense file means staff and members will take more time to review estimated costs (and possible legal implications) before deciding whether the bill advances to the Senate floor. The Department of Finance's estimate and the strong public turnout (many speakers for and against) were the decisive factors reported in committee.

Next steps: AB 495 will remain on the committee's suspense file while analysts and members consider the Department of Finance estimates and stakeholder concerns. Any future action (release from suspense to the floor or further amendments) will be set by the committee during the suspense-review period.

The committee heard the bill as a special order of business; authors of many suspense-file measures waived presentation and many witnesses addressed fiscal impacts rather than policy specifics during the Appropriations hearing.