Small change in law’s wording could impact when Kansas police remove kids from unsafe home
Rep. Cyndi Howerton, seen here on April 9, 2025, at the Statehouse, spoke in favor of legislation that would give law enforcement officers more flexibility on how to handle kids in unsafe environments. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — A one-word change for a Kansas law could determine whether a child is immediately removed by officers from a potentially dangerous home environment.
House Bill 2132 says law enforcement officers “may” remove a child if they believe a child is in an unsafe environment. Current law says they “shall” remove a child from the home if they have probable cause.
The change would give law enforcement the option to remove a child from an unsafe home instead of requiring them to do so.
Rep. Cyndi Howerton, a Republican from Sedgwick County, spoke to the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare as a proponent of the change. She called the language change a “technical clean-up.”
Johnson County Assistant District Attorney Donald Hymer said the change is significant because it could leave a child in an unsafe environment until the situation could be assessed.
“If we put the social work component on law enforcement officers, that officer is making an assessment in a very short time period,” Hymer said. “If law enforcement makes that determination, do we really want to put (the child) right back? Because that’s what we’re saying if we go to ‘may.’ ”
Hymer said when law enforcement takes a child into custody, the Department for Children and Families can then safely assess the home situation while the child is in police protective custody. He said children can be sent home before the 72 hours of custody are up and are often sent home with additional services from the Department for Children and Families.
The language that states officers may remove a child would mean there could be an additional 24-hour period before a child is taken into custody or the option for a child to go to a relative. Committee chair Senator Beverly Gossage said it could give families other options than immediate custody.
Howerton cited data from a district attorney that states of 1,057 cases of police protective custody, 299 cases were then petitioned to the court as a child in need of care. Howerton said 758 cases were removed from their home for 72 hours and returned home.
Howerton also said that if law enforcement did not take the child into custody that DCF could be there within 24 hours to check in on the situation.
“This allows for a parent to send their child to grandma’s house, or you don’t have to take my child while we calm down here,” Howerton said. “I’m not opposed to it but we were just trying to do a technical clean-up.”
Sen. Mike Thompson, a Shawnee Republican, said he worries law enforcement would have to make a quick decision in the moment and questioned what the liabilities could be for officers.
“Police don’t just show up to your door for no reason at all. But this can also put a police officer in the position to determine if a kid is telling the truth or not, or whether the parents are telling the truth or not,” Thompson said. “I think that’s a very muddy situation. I have real concerns about allowing that discretion because they’re put in a pretty tough spot.”
Hymer said children who may be experiencing neglect or abuse should be awarded the same protections that law gives to survivors of domestic violence.
“There’s a baseline of an emergency. If you can make that determination of immediate harm if not removed, I think it follows that it should be officers ‘shall remove,’ ” Hymer said. “If you as an officer come to the conclusion that if you don’t remove a child they will be harmed, then I don’t think there should be discretion for that.”