Kansas committee debates wording, standards in HB 2132 definition-of-neglect bill

The House Committee on Children and Seniors held an extended discussion of House Bill 2132, the bill that would revise the statutory definition of child neglect, but took no formal votes on the measure and the chair said motions will be allowed at a continuation of the hearing on Wednesday.

Committee members debated several proposed amendments and definitions that would change when and how the state may remove children from a home or otherwise intervene. Representative Susan Humphreys (Representative Humphreys) opened the discussion by asking the committee not to vote that day so members could vet amendments and asked staffer Jesse of the Reviser of Statutes Office to distribute redlined language for review.

Why it matters: HB 2132 would alter thresholds and statutory language used across child-welfare procedures — from intake and investigation to petitions for removal — and committee members warned the choice of words ("likelihood," "reasonable suspicion," "probable cause," "imminent" or "immediate" harm) will shape how law enforcement, Department for Children and Families (DCF) workers and courts act in the field.

Major discussion points

Standards for intervention: Several members asked whether the bill should retain the current statutory phrase "likelihood of harm," replace it with "reasonable suspicion," or require a higher standard such as "probable cause" or "imminent harm." Representative Carr asked how a "likelihood" would be determined in practice; Representative Humphreys and others defended "reasonable suspicion" as a middle ground that relies on objective facts and the responder's training. Jesse, from the Reviser of Statutes Office, told the committee that many of the contested terms are not defined in Kansas statute and provided the panel a memo that collected definitions from Kansas code, Black's Law Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and examples from other states.

Prenatal substance exposure: Representative Humphreys offered an amendment that would remove prenatal drug- or alcohol-exposure as an automatic exclusion from "imminent harm" findings. Humphreys said she has personal experience with adoption cases in which infants born drug-exposed are admitted to neonatal intensive care and argued that prenatal exposure alone can show imminent risk. Other members noted there had been a separate amendment on how to treat substance abuse (including language distinguishing non-felony substance use without harm) and signaled more discussion was needed.

Failure vs. refusal: Several members debated whether to use "refusal" or "failure" (and whether to qualify it as "unreasonable failure"). Proponents of "unreasonable failure" said the wording distinguishes unavoidable lapses from actionable conduct (for example, choosing to buy nonessentials rather than formula). Members said the committee could draft refinements that allow different words to apply to distinct provisions (food, services, supervision).

Kinship-care definition: Humphreys proposed adding explicit statutory language that would allow current or previous foster parents to qualify as kinship caregivers when the child (or the child's parent) already has close emotional ties to that adult. Some members said that change touches different legal issues and may deserve its own hearing because of case-law implications.

Removal petition standards and list of factors: The chair presented draft amendment language that would require petitions for removal to specify facts demonstrating that a child could sustain imminent harm if left at home and would prohibit basing such petitions solely on enumerated items (for example, non-felony substance abuse without harm or prenatal exposure, if amended). The draft added items such as ‘‘community or family poverty,’’ ‘‘crowded or inadequate housing,’’ and ‘‘isolation’’ to the list of factors that may be considered but noted that most members wanted such conditions not to stand alone as sole bases for removal.

Definitions memo from Reviser: Jesse summarized a committee memo that listed terms used in the child-welfare code (harm, imminent harm, likelihood, reasonable suspicion, reasonable cause, probable cause, failure, refusal, reasonable and the reasonable and prudent parenting standard). The memo flagged which terms already appear in Kansas statutes, which appear in legal dictionaries, and where other states have statutory definitions for related terms.

Practice, training and timing: Deputy Secretary Tanya Keyes of the Department for Children and Families told the committee how DCF treats some situations in practice — for example, failure to provide food typically is handled as physical neglect, and starvation-type presentations are viewed in practice as "failure to thrive" or impairment of the body. Members and DAs raised concerns about implementation logistics and training; one district attorney asked for a delayed effective date to give DCF and law enforcement time to update policy and training. The chair circulated an amendment that would delay the bill's effective date (one suggestion on the record was Jan. 1, 2026; another suggestion was an 18-month delay), but the committee did not set final timing.

Related proposal discussed: Representative Owsley raised HB 2302, a separate bill the committee has been assigned, that would require DCF to maintain 24/7 operations or consultation availability for law enforcement when officers reasonably believe a child will be harmed if not immediately removed. The bill has a fiscal note on file; an amount on the record was approximately $666,000 in state general funds (total expenditures cited separately as about $692,000). Members discussed alternatives such as funding co‑located social workers in law-enforcement agencies or using Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) models.

What the committee did: The chair repeatedly said the committee would not take motions on HB 2132 at this meeting and instead will continue discussion on Wednesday, when members may offer formal amendments and votes. The only formal action taken during the hearing was approval of the committee minutes on a voice vote: Representative Johnson moved to approve the minutes; Representative Neighbour seconded; the motion was carried on an aye vote.

Voices from the hearing (selected)

"What I want to do, committee, is I do not want any motions today...This is a little bit different than what I've done in the past...I want to have a full vetting of this bill as much as possible," the chair said at the start of the hearing.

"If you read it...you might result in bodily injury or harm to the child...we need to be a little proactive," Representative Humphreys said when arguing to retain language that looks to the "likelihood" or potential of harm rather than waiting for an injury.

Jesse, Reviser of Statutes Office: "When you're looking at the use of these words when being used in the definition of neglect...these are some examples requested by the chairwoman to look at how they were defined."

Deputy Secretary Tanya Keyes, Department for Children and Families: "In terms of practice...failure to provide the child with food, clothing, or shelter...the word food could be applicable in that situation. In terms of categorically, physical neglect is what it would fall under."

Next steps: The committee will reconvene Wednesday to hear formal amendments and motions on HB 2132 and related proposals. Committee members asked staff to continue compiling precise statutory definitions (for example, of "likelihood," "reasonable suspicion" and "imminent" or "immediate" harm) and to solicit additional input from district attorneys and DCF staff before making final changes.

Ending note: No final legislative action on HB 2132 occurred at this meeting; the chair expressly deferred votes to the continuation of the hearing to allow broader vetting and drafting of definition language.