Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025.

Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez weaves policy substance with a focus on family stability in the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, proposing a rebalanced framework for caregiver authority and guardianship when a parent is temporarily unavailable. The bill’s findings underscore concerns that immigration actions can disrupt caregiving and education for vulnerable children, and it articulates an intent to clarify who may authorize school-related services and how guardianship arrangements can be short-term and confidential. The author and sponsors frame these changes as addressing gaps in authority and crisis response, while documenting privacy protections for minors and families.

The core changes expand who may sign a caregiver’s authorization affidavit, enabling a broader range of relatives to enroll a minor in school and to consent to school-related medical care on the minor’s behalf, including mental health treatment within defined limits. The caregiver’s authorization affidavit form is revised to reflect new relative-eligibility and to spell out the duties and liabilities of rely-on protections for health and school personnel. The bill also permits a custodial parent, when temporarily unavailable due to specified circumstances including immigration-related actions, to nominate a second person as a joint guardian for the minor; such guardianship records are made confidential, and the arrangement can continue until a specified condition or absence ends. The probate framework is adjusted to accommodate these temporary joint-guardian arrangements, with explicit protections around access to records and restrictions on disclosure to immigration enforcement absent a court order.

In the education, child care, and related policy spheres, the bill tightens information handling around immigration status in schools and day care settings. It prohibits school officials from collecting citizenship or immigration status information except as required by law or for administering a program, and it requires timely reporting to the local governing body about requests for information or access by immigration enforcement. It also requires LEAs to disseminate guidance issued by the Attorney General, including model policies on immigration issues, and to keep information updated as guidance changes; language and posting requirements are extended to multiple languages. A parallel framework applies to licensed child daycare facilities and license-exempt state preschool programs, with reporting duties to the appropriate state agencies and a mandate that these facilities adopt model policies developed by the Attorney General, subject to timelines that extend into 2026 and potential interim licensing standards if regulations are not yet in place. The act also extends similar confidentiality protections to guardianship-related proceedings and requires that joint guardianship records be shielded from disclosure to immigration authorities without a court order.

Operational timing and implementation hinge on conditional operative paths tied to other proposed measures, creating three potential sequences for implementing amendments to the Education Code’s school-privacy provisions depending on the enactment of related bills and their timing. The bill contemplates no general appropriation but notes potential local costs if mandates are triggered, with oversight from the Commission on State Mandates to determine reimbursements where applicable. Taken together, the proposals create a comprehensive privacy, authority, and crisis-response architecture across schools, child care facilities, and preschools, anchored by Attorney General model policies and strengthened by confidential guardianship mechanisms intended to preserve continuity of care during immigration-related disruptions.