Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Testimony Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocates testify to committee, alleging court and agency failures and opposing immunity bill
Summary
Thirteen witnesses recounted prolonged separations, alleged fabrication of records, delayed investigations and courtroom grievances, and several speakers urged the committee to oppose HB 25 21, which they say would grant broad immunity to private child-welfare providers. The committee asked DCF for follow-up data and legal context.
Thirteen people offered public testimony at the June 30 Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight, many recounting personal experiences they characterized as systemic failures of Kansas child-protection and judicial processes.
Lauren Allen (speaker 16) said her family’s case was “stagnant for four years,” alleged fabrications in court filings and inconsistent follow-through by providers, and told the committee she had not seen her children in more than two years. Madeline Bouton (speaker 17) described pressure by some agencies to shift adopt-only families toward foster licensure, saying she was told adopt-only homes are viewed as “not as desirable” because agencies receive payment for licensed foster placements. Sarah Goble (speaker 22) criticized support for HB 25 21, calling it “almost total immunity” for private providers and arguing that the bill would shield agencies that receive significant revenue from oversight.
Other witnesses recounted long waits for investigative responses (questions about an initial-contact time frame), accounts of children removed after medical misdiagnoses, allegations of coordinated failures among guardians ad litem, therapists and DCF, and requests that the committee pursue investigations or statutory fixes. Sean Lee (speaker 23), an attorney, urged a fraud task force and pointed to national investigations involving clinics.
Committee members asked clarifying questions: several asked staff to supply the text of HB 25 21 and to summarize any statutory differences in funding or placement preference between licensed foster homes and adopt-only homes. Restoration Family Services’ written testimony and Marilyn Shaw (associate executive director, speaker 25) clarified that pay for foster care versus adoption from foster care is handled by DCF and that licensed foster homes that already care for a child are commonly selected when a child has bonded with that home.
The committee recorded the testimony for the record, requested follow-up research on mediator licensing and on whether disparities exist between foster-licensed and adopt-only families, and asked DCF and research staff to produce a summary of the prevalence of case types (truancy, behavioral, abuse/neglect) that were discussed in closed sessions.
