WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2132

Erosion and sediment control for certain localities; bond for sediment basin.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Paul Milde

The bill narrows neglect to a substantial risk of serious harm, limits removals based on poverty, and requires courts to consider prevention services before removing a child.

Left in Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2132

Summary — Substitute for HB 2132 (2025)

Status: Committee report recommending substitute bill be passed by House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care. Introduced: January 28, 2025.

Purpose

To narrow and clarify the legal definition of "neglect" in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (CINC Code), limit removals based solely on poverty or single-family factors, change when law enforcement may take a child into custody, require DCF/Secretary for Children and Families to provide/refine referral and response procedures, and require courts to consider prevention services before ordering temporary custody.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definition of “neglect”

    • Replaces the phrase “likelihood of harm” with “substantial risk of serious harm.”
    • Adds explicit language that inability to provide for a child due to inadequate financial resources “shall not be considered neglect for such reason alone.”
    • Clarifies neglect can be found for acts/omissions that result in harm or present a substantial risk of serious harm, and that neglect may include the cumulative effects of a pattern of conduct, behavior, or inaction.
    • Changes standard for some enumerated failures (e.g., failing to provide necessities, supervision, or medical care) to require an “unreasonable failure or refusal” by the parent/guardian.

  • Child in Need of Care (CINC) petitions and removal

    • Petition must allege facts showing “substantial risk of serious harm” (replacing “likely to sustain harm”).
    • Facts supporting serious harm may not be based solely on any one of these factors:
    • community or family poverty;
    • isolation;
    • age of the parent;
    • crowded or inadequate housing;
    • non‑felony drug crime without harm;
    • mental or behavioral health conditions;
    • disability or special needs of parent or child;
    • finding of noncompliance with compulsory school attendance;
    • any one of the above when co‑occurring with community or family poverty.
    • Petition may weigh whether the harm of removal would be greater than harm to the child from remaining.

  • Police protective custody and referrals

    • Taking a child into custody becomes discretionary (rather than mandatory) — officer must reasonably believe the child will be seriously harmed if not removed and must explore other options to separate the child from the harm source before removal.
    • Secretary must provide an electronic means for law enforcement to refer suspected abuse/neglect and must determine whether to initiate a DCF investigation within 24 hours of a referral.

  • Court factors and prevention services (effective for proceedings filed on/after Jan 1, 2026)

    • Courts must consider whether parental participation in prevention services would prevent or eliminate the need for removal.
    • Courts must ask if a parent is willing to participate; courts cannot order participation over a parent’s objection (but parents may consult counsel before deciding).
    • If a parent agrees to court‑ordered prevention services that would avoid removal, the court must place the child with that parent.
    • Courts must also consider whether issuing a temporary protection order (removing a person from the home) would avoid removing the child.
    • Secretary must update agency policies to reflect these factors and submit copies to the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight by January 1, 2026.

Who is affected

  • Parents, guardians, and children (especially low-income families)
  • Secretary for Children and Families / Department for Children and Families (policy, referral response)
  • Law enforcement officers (custody discretion, referral process)
  • Juvenile courts, judges, and court staff (additional findings and inquiries)
  • Attorneys, child-placing agencies, and service providers

Fiscal and procedural notes

  • Department for Children and Families: no fiscal effect reported.
  • Judicial Branch: could incur additional expenditures due to required findings and considerations; fiscal impact indeterminate.
  • Time-sensitive items: 24-hour referral response; court-factor and agency policy changes effective for proceedings filed on/after Jan 1, 2026; agency policy updates due Jan 1, 2026.

Legislative context and testimony

  • Bill introduced at request of the Secretary for Children and Families.
  • Proponents emphasized preventing removals based solely on poverty; supporters included child-advocacy organizations and DCF.
  • Opponents (law enforcement and some prosecutors) raised concerns about the ability to remove children from dangerous conditions under the revised standards.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.