National expert: states remove children at very different rates; emergency removals have grown

Topeka, Kan. — Christopher Church, senior director of strategic consulting at Casey Family Programs, told the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight on June 2 that national research shows wide disparities between states in how often children are removed from their parents’ custody — disparities that cannot be explained by underlying community need alone.

Church briefed lawmakers on the “front door” of the child-welfare system: what happens from the moment an individual reports suspected maltreatment until officials decide whether to remove a child. He urged the committee to embrace policies that reduce unnecessary investigations and avoid traumatizing families while still protecting children at imminent risk.

Key points from Church’s presentation: - National data: Case incident surveys show child protective services interacts with a far larger number of families than those confirmed as maltreated. Church cited an analysis showing that of roughly 3.1 million children who received a CPS response nationally, only about 500,000 were confirmed victims — a pattern he described as both an “overfit” (too many unnecessary investigations) and an “underfit” (many cases of maltreatment go undetected). - Large interstate variance: Church showed federal data in which children in some states are dozens of times more likely to be removed than in others. He singled out Kansas as above the national rate and suggested the committee examine local drivers of variance (policy, practices, high-profile cases, or administration changes). - Emergency removals: He stressed that most U.S. law recognizes pre-deprivation due process for parents but allows emergency removals when a child faces imminent danger. Yet Church said emergency pathways increasingly represent the norm — what he described as “the exceptions swallowing the rule.” - Recommendations: Legal and practice changes Church promoted included preventative legal advocacy (medical-legal partnerships, school-embedded legal help), earlier and higher-quality legal representation for parents and children, more adversarial testing earlier in cases, statutory clarification of neglect versus willful harm, alternative/differential response models and services tailored to the underlying risks (housing, food, stability, parenting supports).

Why it matters: Church framed the front door as the system’s most consequential set of decisions: poor calibration can either needlessly separate children from families or fail to protect children who are at risk. He recommended calibrations that preserve family connections and provide tailored supports instead of one-size-fits-all investigations.

What the committee asked: Members asked about specific drivers of state-level differences and whether Kansas could replicate approaches that led states such as New Jersey to reduce removal rates. Church said New Jersey invested heavily in a coordinated system of care and preventative legal advocacy; he said similar investments could reduce dependence on foster care.

Sources and attribution: Testimony and slides from Christopher Church, Casey Family Programs; committee Q&A.