House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care
(Rep. Cyndi Howerton, Chair)
On Monday, Feb. 9, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2639, which would rename juvenile crisis intervention centers as juvenile stabilization centers, modify admission criteria and services provided at such centers, revise related statutory language in the Child in Need of Care (CINC) and Juvenile Offender Codes, and transfer $2 million from the Evidence-Based Programs Fund to support stabilization services.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponent Chair Howerton stated the bill builds on discussions held during the summer and fall related to 2025 HB 2329, which expanded youth residential bed capacity following adjudication, and noted those discussions identified a gap between intake and adjudication, when youth may not yet qualify for residential placement but still require short-term stabilization support. She described juvenile stabilization centers as a response to that gap and noted that a similar model currently operates in Johnson County under Department for Children and Families (DCF) licensure but is limited in placement duration and availability and also explained that the bill replaces the existing Juvenile Crisis Intervention Center (JCIC) statute, enacted in 2018, which has not been utilized due to stringent statutory requirements and insufficient funding. Additional proponents stated the bill would address a critical service gap by creating a more flexible and accessible stabilization option for youth between intake and adjudication.
One opponent, a representative of the Kansas Community Corrections Association, opposed the bill’s mandatory detention override provisions, which require detention when a juvenile has presented twice within a year, regardless of offense severity, and could result in detention of low-risk youth for minor or situational offenses.
Neutral conferees included Megan Milner, Deputy Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), Tanya Keys, Deputy Secretary, Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) and Drew Adkins, Commissioner for Behavioral Health, Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS). Milner stated that KDOC is concerned about the definition of crossover youth, which the bill defines as one who is at risk of being placed in foster care or currently in foster care due to behaviors that could result in juvenile offender allegations, while an existing interagency state policy team uses a broader, bi-directional definition that includes youth involved in either the child welfare or juvenile justice systems who are at risk of crossing into the other system. She also noted that KDOC has a fully executed agreement with DCF regarding the transfer of $2 million and requested clarification on whether the bill language would provide an additional $2 million for a total of $4 million. Keys stated that DCF is requesting use of the existing statewide definition of crossover youth developed through interagency policy work rather than adopting a narrower statutory definition, a new statutory definition for juvenile stabilization services instead of modifying the existing JCIC statute, and maintaining the current statutory definition of “behavioral health crisis” or providing clear language if replacing it with the undefined term “in need of stabilization.” Adkins raised concerns about removing the requirement for qualified mental health professional authorization and the absence of clearly defined admission standards.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether “child in need of stabilization” is defined in statute (Revisor stated it is not defined and would be interpreted by intake staff or law enforcement); where stabilization centers would be located and whether children would be removed from their communities (Howerton stated DCF would likely issue Request for Proposals for county-based centers); the current structure of the Johnson County stabilization center (Adkins stated it has approximately 12 beds, is funded through county investment and Medicaid reimbursement, and includes staffing such as a medical director, licensed mental health professionals and social workers); definitions and qualifiers for admission criteria, including crossover youth (Milner noted the existing behavioral health crisis definition may assist in clarifying admissions criteria); and whether local detention centers have sufficient capacity if mandatory overrides increase detention (opponent stated capacity is already limited in many jurisdictions and could require youth to be transported outside their home communities).
The Committee then worked HB 2524, which would amend the licensure requirements for family foster homes and require the Secretary of DCF to grant a license or allow maintenance of an existing license of a family foster home when an applicant or individual residing in the home has certain disqualifying convictions or adjudications. The Committee amended the bill to:
- Remove language requiring the granting of a license in certain circumstances
- Add language regarding conviction and adjudication to the list of factors allowing continuation of a license under the bill
- Remove language requiring a child with an adjudication or conviction to be more than 18 years of age
- Add language regarding safety concerns when the Secretary is granting or continuing a license
- Make other technical amendments
The bill was then passed favorably out of committee, as amended.
On Wednesday, Feb. 11, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2638, which would require the Secretary for DCF to provide a child with a verbal and written notice of their rights and additional information once a child is placed into the Secretary’s custody.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents, including Deputy Secretary Tanya Keys, DCF, and Kerrie Lonard, Child Advocate, stated that current statutory requirements for informing children of their rights are insufficient and inconsistently implemented in practice and they support codifying into statute the requirement that the Foster Care Bill of Rights be presented to children in an age and developmentally appropriate manner to ensure they understand the information provided. Other proponents suggested amendments to strengthen and clarify the language of the Bill of Rights to ensure it is child-friendly and trauma-informed, including explicit language regarding the reason for placement, changes in placement, freedom from abuse while in care, age and developmentally appropriate life skills and transition planning beginning at age 14, access to health care, and the right to understand and exercise one’s rights. There was no opponent or neutral testimony presented.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether there is enough capacity to consistently present rights to children, and if yes, why isn’t it already happening (Keys said this is not a resource issue but a training and reinforcement issue for case workers and there is a minimum requirement of monthly contact where the rights can be presented and reenforced); and the rights for children in foster care who are being prescribed medication (they should have information on their health care, prescriptions and providers, but nothing explicitly mentions health and health care).
The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2601, which would establish a new child abuse and neglect central registry to be maintained by the Secretary for DCF and provide procedures and protections for placing individuals on the registry. The bill would also amend current law to no longer automatically prohibit an individual from residing, working or volunteering in a child care facility, unless the person is given an opportunity to be interviewed and to present information during the investigation of the alleged abuse or neglect.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents, including Chair Howerton, stated the bill puts due process into statute and strengthens fairness and transparency, expressed the need to have the new registry structure completely replace the current system rather than operate parallel to it, and emphasized the need for clear implementation to ensure the registry functions effectively without slowing down background checks or placement decisions for children. Opponent testimony will be presented during the week of Feb. 16.
Neutral conferee Kerrie Lonard, Child Advocate, expressed concerns regarding how the new registry would interact with existing systems, potential fiscal impacts if the new process in the bill results in an increase in hearings, appeals and related litigation costs, the time period between substantiation and registry placement if appeals are pending, and the automatic expungement provision after three years that may unintentionally reduce long-term tracking of individuals who pose an ongoing risk to children. Neutral conferee Loren Snell Jr., Acting Director, Administrative Law Judge, stated the bill would shift the burden to the agency to establish substantiation prior to registry placement, extend the time frame for requesting a hearing to 12 months, and could delay final registry determinations. He further noted that approximately 40 to 45 percent of substantiations are currently appealed, suggesting that the proposed changes could significantly increase the volume of hearings.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether an individual substantiated by DCF for child abuse or neglect would be placed on the registry prior to a criminal conviction (Howerton clarified that registry placement relates to administrative proceedings and is separate from criminal conviction, and that a hearing would occur prior to placement on the registry); whether individuals are being properly informed about the process for being added to and removed from the registry (Lonard stated the notice requirements need to be strengthened to ensure individuals understand their rights and timelines).
The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2734, which would amend the Revised Code for Care of Children as it would apply to a child under two years of age and would require the Secretary of DCF to implement expedited procedures for permanency of a child at the time a child welfare petition was filed. The bill sets an expectation of achieving a permanent outcome within 12 months and establishes firm timelines once the court determines that reintegration is no longer viable.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents included Rep. Susan Humphries; Kerrie Lonard, Child Advocate; and Michael Kagay, District Attorney, Third Judicial District of Kansas. Kagay stated the bill establishes an expedited permanency track for children under two years of age. Opponent and neutral testimony will be heard the week of Feb. 16. Committee members asked about the impact of the proposed timelines on best interest staff and related court personnel and Kagay replied that the bill is designed to streamline and expedite the process rather than create additional burden.
Source link
