“Where Feasible”: Why AB 506’s Safest Option for Churches Is Often to Stop, Not Continue Ministry
California’s Assembly Bill 506 (AB 506) was enacted with the stated goal of improving child safety within youth-serving organizations. Few would argue with that aim. Yet one small phrase embedded in the statute—“where feasible”—has created profound legal uncertainty and unintended consequences for churches, particularly small congregations that rely almost entirely on volunteers.
Understanding what “where feasible” actually means in law is critical, because misunderstanding it can expose churches and church leaders to enormous legal and financial risk.
What “Where Feasible” Means in Law
In ordinary conversation, feasible sounds flexible—something like “if possible” or “if it works for you.” In statutory language, however, it has a much narrower meaning. Legally speaking, “where feasible” means where compliance is reasonably capable of being accomplished under the circumstances, using available resources, without extraordinary or unreasonable measures. It does not mean optional. It does not mean discretionary. And it certainly does not mean “only if convenient.” Courts interpret feasibility objectively, not subjectively. The question is not whether compliance is difficult or undesirable, but whether a reasonable organization could comply under the circumstances.
How AB 506 Uses the Phrase
AB 506 requires youth service organizations to adopt child abuse prevention policies, including policies that require, “to the greatest extent possible,” the presence of at least two mandated reporters whenever children are supervised. The “where feasible” qualifier softens the command—but it does not remove the obligation. The law provides no exemption process, no certification of infeasibility, and no alternative compliance pathway for churches that cannot meet the requirement. This means feasibility is not determined in advance. It is determined after the fact, usually after an allegation, by parties who are not friendly to the church: insurers, judges, juries, and plaintiff’s attorneys.
How Feasibility Is Judged After the Fact
If a claim is ever brought, the church will not be asked, “Did you try your best?” It will be asked questions like:
Could the church have hired staff?
Could it have restructured ministry schedules?
Could it have reduced or eliminated the program?
Could it have followed the model used by other churches?
Most importantly, the question will be:
If compliance was not feasible, why did the church continue operating the program anyway?
This is where the legal danger becomes acute.
Why Financial Hardship Is Usually Not Enough
Churches often assume that lack of funds establishes infeasibility. In reality, financial hardship alone rarely satisfies legal feasibility standards, unless compliance would threaten the organization’s continued existence. Courts and insurers routinely reason that if an activity cannot be conducted lawfully, the organization’s obligation is not to continue it unlawfully, but to cease the activity. This is a hard truth, but a consistent one in liability law.
The Insurance Industry’s View
Insurance carriers interpret “where feasible” very narrowly. From an insurer’s perspective:
If compliance was theoretically possible, it was feasible.
If another organization found a way, it was feasible.
If the activity could have been suspended, feasibility is irrelevant.
This is why insurers are uniformly insisting on actual compliance, not reliance on the qualifier. To them, “where feasible” does not justify continued operation—it justifies non-operation. Once leadership is aware that compliance is not feasible, continuing the activity can be framed as knowing assumption of risk, which is devastating in both coverage determinations and litigation.
The Paradox of “Where Feasible”
Ironically, the clause intended to provide flexibility ends up increasing exposure for churches.
Why? Because once infeasibility is recognized, continuing ministry under the regulated model can be portrayed as:
Negligence
Recklessness
Failure to mitigate known risk
Willful disregard of statutory standards
Especially damaging is documentation showing leaders understood the law, recognized infeasibility, and proceeded anyway.
The Legally Defensible Response
For many churches, the most legally defensible conclusion is this:
Compliance with AB 506 is not feasible
Therefore, the regulated activity must cease
Therefore, lawful alternatives must be pursued
This is not retreat. It is risk mitigation.
It demonstrates good faith, respect for the law, and a commitment to protecting children and church leaders.
A Lawful Path Forward
AB 506 does not regulate parents acting in their parental capacity. It does not prohibit parents from gathering, teaching, or discipling their own children. It regulates church-operated youth programs staffed by organizational personnel and volunteers. That distinction matters. Placing primary responsibility for children’s discipleship back into the hands of parents is not only biblically sound—it is legally prudent.
Conclusion
In AB 506, “where feasible” is not a permission slip. It is a liability trigger. Once a church determines that compliance is not reasonably achievable, the safest legal course is not to continue under risk, but to stop, reassess, and restructure ministry in a way that falls outside the statute’s reach. In this environment, wisdom is not found in testing enforcement boundaries, but in acting decisively to protect children, pastors, elders, and the church itself.