Kansas lawmakers may change the definition of neglect in the foster care system. 

Their goal is to clarify that poverty shouldn’t be the reason kids are taken from their parents. But some fear the bill would put kids in danger. 

State law currently says that poverty is not a reason to put a child in foster care. The new bill seeks to further clarify that point, while also tweaking a few sentences:

• State law currently says a child can be removed from a home if there is harm or a likelihood of harm. The bill removes the likelihood of harm clause. 
• The bill also removes the word failure from the definition of neglect and replaces it with refusal. Instead of failing to provide food to children, refusing to provide food is neglect. 
• Substance use, mental health issues, inadequate housing, missing school or a disability are not allowed to be the only reasons to remove a child from a home. 

From July to December, there may have been more than 400 children who would have stayed at home instead of entering foster care if the new definitions of neglect had been in effect, according to DCF data. It’s hard to get an accurate number without looking at case files, though. 

Brenna Visocsky, Just Campaign director at Kansas Appleseed’s, said the state has too many foster kids — twice the national average. Most are in the system due to neglect. 

She said there’s a difference between a family refusing to have a safe home versus a poor family unable to fix up the house to appease social workers. Visocsky said the state should have a more compassionate foster care system that tries to help before taking kids away. 

“Too many hard-working Kansans are still struggling to put food on their tables, gas in their cars and a roof over their head,” she said. “They should not have to fear having their family torn apart on top of it all.”

Visocsky said shifting toward prevention is cheaper. It costs $5,000 to $10,000 to offer family preservation services per family per year. It costs up to $136,000 a year to put a child with a foster family. 

Kerrie Lonard, the state’s child advocate, runs the Kansas foster care watchdog agency. She supports the bill.

Lonard’s agency fields complaints from families all the time, and the most common complaint is unnecessary removal because of poverty and neglect. She said courts and social workers across the state make very different decisions on when to remove children. 

But Lonard did have some concerns about the bill. 

The proposal says kids can’t be removed from a home if there is a “likelihood of harm.” Does that mean the state has to wait until children are hurt before they can step in? 

Replacing “failure” with “refusal” in state law is also tricky. If a parent is high on drugs, that child may not be in a safe environment. But those parents aren’t actively refusing any state services. Does that mean you couldn’t remove the kid until the parents refused help or the child is hurt?

Tabitha Owen, president of the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association, is against the bill. She said she never wants children removed from a home because of poverty, but she worries the bill’s language creates legal loopholes. 

Under the bill, attorneys would now need to show that children are being actively harmed and that the parents are actively refusing help. 

“Taking out the ability to have any sort of preventative action is just really dangerous,” Owen said. 

Then there’s the issue of state funding. 

The bill is trying to direct families to get support services before a foster care removal, but the proposal provides no extra funding. Treatment programs could have waitlists that prevent that from happening. 

Support for the bill came from DCF, former social workers and other child welfare advocates. Opposition to the idea came from police and lawyers.

Rep. Cyndi Howerton, a Wichita Republican, said she wants to work the bill next week. She gave lawmakers a week so they all had time to address concerns raised in the committee. 

“Changing the definition of neglect will change the direction of child welfare in our state,” said Howerton, the chair of the foster care committee. “This one is a heavy lift … and maybe we do something, maybe we don’t.”