Committee hears bill to move foster-care permanency hearings from 12 to 9 months

At a hearing of the Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care, lawmakers and witnesses discussed House Bill 2075, which would amend K.S.A. 38-2264 to require a permanency hearing for a child in out-of-home foster care within nine months of the court-authorized removal and thereafter not less frequently than every nine months instead of the current 12-month schedule.

The bill’s sponsor materials and agency witnesses framed the measure as a step to shorten the time children spend separated from family and to improve Kansas’ performance on federal permanency measures. Jess Pringle, the committee reviser, said, “The bill before you amends both of those requirements of 12 months to 9 months.”

Tanya Keyes, Deputy Secretary at the Department for Children and Families, told the committee that the change is intended to “reduce the time that a child is separated from their family and kin while they're in the custody of the secretary in foster care” and to move Kansas closer to national performance on timeliness. Keyes gave the committee a snapshot of recent performance: for children in care and leaving within 12 months the national rate is 35.2% and Kansas’ rate is 32.8%; for children in care 12–23 months the national target is 43.8% and Kansas is 33%; and for children in care 24 months or longer national performance is 37% versus Kansas’ 30%.

Keyes also reviewed examples of other states’ time frames: New York, Oklahoma and Texas set first permanency hearings at six months; Connecticut sets nine months; Virginia sets ten months; some states use age-based schedules (for example, California and Arizona use earlier review windows for very young children), and Colorado has county programs with hearings as early as three months in some jurisdictions. On fiscal estimates, Keyes said DCF modeled a scenario in which roughly half of children in care might experience two fewer months in care, producing an estimated state general fund reduction in foster-care expenditures of about $4,800,000 and an estimated $7,000,000 in all funds not expended.

Carrie Larnard, the child advocate with the Office of the Child Advocate, testified in support and described the procedural benefit of more frequent hearings: in her prior work as a practitioner she said hearings create an “intentional focus” because they concentrate attention on case plans, services and firm deadlines. Larnard noted that unreasonable delay in achieving permanency was one of the top concerns reported to her office in 2024 and called HB 2075 “at least one piece of the puzzle” to address that concern.

Bridal Hedrick, chief executive officer of the Children’s Alliance of Kansas, urged passage on child-development grounds, saying the longer children remain separated from familiar family environments the greater the stress and longer-term health and behavioral effects. “The longer we expose them to that unknown unfamiliar caregivers, schools, bedrooms, bathrooms, food, communities, the deeper that impact and the harder the recovery,” Hedrick said.

Committee members pressed witnesses on operational questions. Representative Page and others asked whether courts and counsel across Kansas could handle a shorter schedule; Keyes said DCF has discussed the idea with a Supreme Court permanency planning task force and that local jurisdictions have already been discussing expedited timelines, but she also said Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) had not provided a reliable statewide data file on timing to confirm court capacity. Larnard and other witnesses said some jurisdictions already hold review hearings more frequently than 12 months and that moving the statutory milestone earlier would likely increase the “intentionality” of case work and court oversight.

Members also asked whether parents consistently receive notice and legal representation. Witnesses said parents are entitled to counsel under state statute subject to income qualification; whether appointed counsel appears or parents can be reached will vary by jurisdiction and circumstance.

The committee did not take a vote on HB 2075. Chair Howerton closed the hearing and said she would place the bill back on the agenda for Monday and attempt to secure testimony from the courts. “I'm gonna close the hearing on this bill, but I'm gonna put on the agenda for Monday to possibly reopen this hearing, and I'm gonna try to get, some court testimony,” the chair said. The committee formally approved minutes from a prior meeting during the same session (motion to accept minutes of 116122, moved by Representative Neighbor, seconded by Representative Carr; voice vote: “Aye”).

Where discussion concerned possible next steps, the committee asked DCF and the Office of the Child Advocate to supply additional information about alternate timelines used in other states and for OJA or local courts to provide data or testimony on operational impact.

No formal committee action on HB 2075 was recorded in the transcript provided.