Kansas committee hears bill to bar anonymous child-abuse reports to DCF; law-enforcement exception and data questions remain

The Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care held a Feb. 4 bill hearing on House Bill 2589, which would prohibit the secretary for children and families from accepting anonymous reports of child abuse or neglect and require reporters to provide identifying information before DCF records or assigns a report.

Proponents, including bill co-authors Representative Dave Bueller and Representative Tim Johnson, said the measure is intended to curb what they called the "weaponization" of anonymous complaints that can spread through schools, courts and other mandated reporters and cause financial and emotional harm. "There is no recourse today for an individual who has suffered harm by an anonymous unsubstantiated report," Bueller said, describing constituents who he said lost custody or faced financial ruin after such allegations.

The bill would amend the mandatory-reporting statute (KSA 38-22-23) to require reporters to provide their source of information, name, telephone number and residential address; it would also prohibit the secretary from accepting, transmitting or assigning reports that do not include that information. Reviser Jesse explained the bill also updates law-enforcement-record and agency-record confidentiality provisions (KSA 38-22-13 and KSA 38-22-12) to restrict disclosure of reporter-identifying information when records are shared.

Deputy Secretary Tanya Keyes of the Department for Children and Families said DCF supports the bill's goals but raised a technical concern: as drafted, the word "transmit" could prevent DCF from sending information originating from an anonymous source to law enforcement when staff reasonably believe action is necessary to protect a child. Keyes described the agency's intake process and data: DCF receives about 70,000 child-abuse-and-neglect reports per year (about 200 daily), roughly 30% arrive by phone, and about 6% of calls are from anonymous reporters; approximately 53% of reports overall are assigned for further action. "We take every call we receive in good faith," Keyes said, describing the screening, assignment and regional-response process.

Representative Johnson, a former criminal investigator, said some research and local studies show low substantiation rates for anonymous reports in other jurisdictions and argued the change could reduce repeated unsubstantiated filings and lighten DCF workload. He also cited racial-disproportionality concerns, referring to a study he said showed Black children are overrepresented in foster care and arguing the change could reduce racially motivated reporting.

Carrie Lautner of the Office of Child Advocate said her office was neutral but supportive of the bill's goals; she urged lawmakers to require data collection and reporting if anonymity is restricted so the state can track whether victims are deterred from reporting and how law-enforcement referrals change.

The committee discussion also explored a statutory nuance: the bill applies existing confidentiality prohibitions to certain law-enforcement disclosures, and members asked how prosecutors and courts would access reporter information when needed for criminal prosecutions. Reviser Jesse and other members said existing statutory language allows law enforcement to obtain reporter information when investigating a specific case, but several members requested further drafting to clarify how and when DCF may transmit anonymous-origin information to law enforcement in cases of imminent danger.

No formal committee vote was taken on HB 2589 during the Feb. 4 hearing; proponents and agency staff said they would continue to work on technical amendments and data-reporting language in subsequent conversations.

Next steps: the committee held the bill hearing and received proponent, neutral and agency testimony; sponsors and DCF indicated willingness to work on clarifying language and data requirements before any final committee action.