Child Advocate Questions State Decisions

By Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector

TOPEKA — The Kansas child advocate urged the Kansas Legislature to narrow the front door to state custody of children by striking a better balance between harm individuals could face by remaining in a home versus trauma resulting from removal from that residence.

Kansas child advocate Kerrie Lonard said lack of clarity in definitions of neglect and harm led to inconsistent removal decisions by the Kansas Department for Children and Families and the state courts. On Monday, she told the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight the challenge extended to law enforcement officers making protective custody decisions about children potentially in harm’s way.

Lonard said reports suggested Kansas relied too heavily on police officers and sheriff deputies to make time-critical determinations about the welfare of children. They were drawn into this role with limited information about families and, in some areas of the state, lack of access to alternative services.

“Kansas is relying on law enforcement to not only act as public safety officer, but also that of a social worker,” Lonard said.

Lonard said questions had been raised in Kansas about the percentage of children being removed from homes by law enforcement. Questions also have been posed about whether child trauma could be reduced if DCF personnel were more readily available to be involved in removal decisions, she said.

Lonard said DCF’s protection center hotline operated 24 hours a day, but after-hour calls regarding the possibility of a child in imminent danger were referred to law enforcement. DCF staff was available 40 hours per week to make decisions on child safety and removal,  which left 128 hours per week to be managed primarily by law enforcement officers.

“Law enforcement does not have in-real-time access to DCF resources or historical information to enable consideration of safely vetted alternative options that would prevent children from being placed into police protective custody,” she said.

Wichita region dominates

DCF deputy secretary Tanya Keys said the 10-county region of the state that included Wichita had 47.1% of the state’s police protective custody placements in fiscal year 2024. In terms of the other five regions of the state, the proportion of protective custody cases ranged from 7.3% in the northwest to 12.7% in the southwest.

In other words, 1,182 of the 2,509 Kansas children placed in protective custody by law enforcement in the last fiscal year were in the Wichita region.

In addition, Keys said, the Kansas Department of Corrections reported 39% of children dropped off at juvenile facilities last fiscal year by law enforcement officers across the state were subsequently released to a family member.

“Forty percent of those children are returned to a parent or relative. That’s their placement outcome after a juvenile intake an assessment worker is alongside that family,” Keys said.

The Legislature unanimously voted last week to send Gov. Laura Kelly a bill amending state law concerning when officers could take a child under 18 into custody for suspected abuse or neglect. Under House Bill 2075, Kansas law enforcement officers would be required to explore other options for shielding a child from harm before turning to protective police custody.

The bill also would add a more direct procedure for law enforcement to report suspected neglect or abuse of a child to DCF for purposes of investigation.

Real-time decisions

Ron Paschal, the deputy district attorney in Sedgwick County responsible for the Child In Need of Care division, said the state should be wary of latching onto a set of statistics and deciding too many children were being taken into protective custody by law enforcement agencies.

He said a significant portion of children in protective custody were later returned home, but that didn’t mean initial decisions of law enforcement officers were flawed.

“We can all agree in a perfect world no child should experience removal from home. We all agree that is a traumatic experience,” Paschal said. “But, I think, if we look at the reality, sadly, many children’s lives and safety are at risk at home.”

Former Topeka police chief Ed Klumpp, who lobbies on behalf of three law enforcement associations in Kansas, said the power to place a child in protective custody wasn’t used by officers without exploration of other solutions.

“Taking a child into police protective custody can be traumatic not only for the child and family, but also to the officer,” Klumpp said.

Klumpp said the issue came before the Legislature due to assertions Kansas’ use of police protective custody might be high compared to other states. He said he wasn’t aware of data supporting the conclusion protective custody was used in Kansas when it was “not justified based on information available to the officer at the time of the decision.”

He agreed DCF’s limited availability from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday required law enforcement officers to grapple with a heavy load in terms of child protection. DCF should be more engaged in the custody process outside normal business hours especially when there was no criminal element to a case, he said.

He also recommended Kansas develop a risk assessment tool for use by law enforcement when determining whether a child could safely be left in the home.