House child-welfare committee advances bill barring DCF policies that require affirmation of sexual-orientation or gender-identity beliefs

The Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care voted to advance House Bill 2311 during a committee hearing, moving the measure toward floor consideration after testimony from proponents who said the bill protects the religious liberty of prospective foster and adoptive parents and opponents who said it would endanger LGBTQ+ children in state custody.

The bill, as described by Jesse of the Revisor's Office, would add a new section to the revised Kansas code for care of children (chapter 65) prohibiting the secretary for children and families from adopting, implementing or enforcing a policy that would require a person to “affirm, accept, or support” a governmental policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity as a condition of being selected for out-of-home placement, custody for adoption, appointment as a permanent or sole custodian, or licensure. The measure would also allow a person aggrieved by a violation to seek damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

Supporters told the committee the change is needed to prevent what they characterized as religious‑belief-based exclusions from the pool of foster and adoptive families. Lance Kinzer of First Amendment Partnership said the bill “was designed to prevent discrimination, based upon religious beliefs,” and to ensure people of faith are not categorically barred from serving. Nathan Brunz, state director for Lifeline Children's Services, and several private citizens who are adoptive or foster parents also told the committee they believe protecting religious and moral beliefs would increase the number of homes available for children.

Opponents — including foster parents, child‑welfare professionals and faith and civil‑rights advocates — said the bill is written so broadly that it could allow non‑affirming placements for LGBTQ+ children and could block the secretary or agencies from adopting protective policies. “Kids need the state's protection from all forms of neglect and abuse,” said Chloe Chaffin, a Douglas County CASA volunteer and opponent, adding that placing a queer child in a home that “will invalidate their queerness and seek to change and fix what is not broken” can compound trauma. Laurel Burchfield of Mainstream Coalition called the proposal a vehicle for “weaponiz[ing] so‑called religious freedoms to discriminate against LGBTQ+ Kansans.”

Dr. Brianna McGough, an assistant professor who studies LGBTQ mental health, told the committee that caregiver rejection and attempts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are associated with higher risks of suicidality, substance use and placement instability, and that relying on individual caseworkers rather than institutional policy can shift safety burdens onto an already overextended system.

Committee members debated whether the bill preserves the secretary’s ability to place children in homes that meet the child’s best interest. Jesse, the reviser, told the committee the bill’s subsection (b) states that subsection (a) “shall not be construed to prohibit the secretary from considering the beliefs of a child, the child's family, or the community” when making placements, and that the best‑interest standard would still apply to individual placement decisions.

Following public testimony the committee voted to suspend the rules and take the bill up for immediate consideration; members later rejected a motion to table the bill and ultimately voted to advance HB 2311 out of committee. The committee clerk recorded "no" votes from Representatives Page, Owlsley and Carr on the final motion to pass the bill out favorably.

Members on both sides of the hearing urged further amendment and floor debate. Proponents said the measure preserves access to foster and adoptive service for people of faith; opponents urged changes to protect children from being placed in homes that would reject or try to change their identity. The bill will next proceed to the full House for additional consideration and possible amendment.