Kansas Legislature – 2025

The 2025 Kansas Legislature convened on Monday, January 13, 2025. Republicans increased their super-majority in both the Kansas House and the Kansas Senate in the 2024 election, meaning that there will likely be fewer positive changes to Kansas Family Law and possibly some regressive bills and concepts introduced. As in past years, the pundits anticipated the right-wing House and Senate leadership would be more partisan and less concerned about populations that did not vote for their party representatives. The culture war drumbeat has been strong in the Kansas Senate, where reactionary senators were put in charge of major committees, and will likely increase in the Kansas House with the primary defeat of “moderate” Republicans in favor of hard-right wing candidates in 2024. As the session progressed, the push for more and more culture wars bills based on attempts to override Kansans overwhelming support for body integrity continued. In addition, despite the majority’s supposed strong support for parental rights, bills were introduced and passed to override parents’ involvement in private decisions about their children to impose the Legislatures preferences–especially having to do with imposing certain religious beliefs on others and denying Kansans choices affecting their own bodies and preferences.

The Kansas legislative session generally runs for 90 days, from early January until approximately mid-April. 

Bills introduced in the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions are dead, and any bills to be considered must be introduced anew. Any bills introduced in 2025 that are not enacted will carry over to the 2026 legislative session.

For the 2025 Session of the Kansas Legislature, individual requests for bill introductions had to be submitted before February 8, 2025; with committee introductions on or before February 10, 2025. All bills must pass the house-of-origin on or before February 23, 2025 (with some exceptions), or they die for the session. The second house turn-around is scheduled for March 29, 2025 (unless by exempt committee). No bills can be considered after April 6, 2025, except for bills vetoed by the Governor, Omnibus Appropriations bills, and Omnibus Reconciliation Spending Limit bills unless there is a vote to suspend those deadlines. The House and Senate returned for a veto session on or about April 10, 2025.

Senate:

SB135: Child custody; Protection from Abuse; precedence of child-related orders issued under the Protection from Abuse Act. (PASSED SENATE 39-0)(AMENDED PASSED HOUSE 128-0)(CONFERENCE)(SENATE ACCEDED 40-0)(GOVERNOR APPROVED APRIL 8, 2025)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025)

This bill was introduced on January 30, 2025, through the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was requested by the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. The bill provides that any child custody provision contained in a protection from abuse order cannot be modified by a subsequent ex parte or temporary order issued in any action, except as provided by orders issued in a child in need of care or under the juvenile justice code.

The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings. A hearing on the bill was scheduled for Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. Ronald W. Nelson testified in favor of the bill for the Kansas Judicial Council, focusing on the fact that the proposed amendments in SB 135 are necessary to make K.S.A. 60-3107(c) clearer and easier to understand, ensuring that litigants, advocates, attorneys, and judges can more easily determine which child-related orders take priority in situations involving multiple legal
actions. “By reorganizing the statute and removing confusing cross-references, these changes improve readability and promote consistency and efficiency in family-related cases.” On February 5, 2025, the Committee passed the bill, recommending that the bill be passed without amendment and be placed on the Senate’s Consent Agenda. On February 11, 2025, the bill was approved Yea: 39 Nay: 0 on the Consent Agenda and sent to the House for consideration.

The bill was introduced into the House on February 13, 2025. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Committee set the bill for a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 3:30 PM in Room 582-N. Ronald W. Nelson testified in favor of the bill for the Kansas Judicial Council, focusing on the fact that the bill does not make substantive changes to the statute (other than to broaden the kinds of actions included), but is intended to make the statute understandable to lawyers, judges, and the general public. On March 6, 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed out the bill with a slight technical amendment to correctly number subsections in the bill. The bill was considered by the House Committee of the Whole on March 19, 2025, and passed on to the full House without further amendment. On Emergency Final Action that same day, the House passed the amended bill Yea: 123 Nay: 0.

The House-passed bill was considered by the Senate and sent to the Conference Committee on March 20, 2025.

On March 25, 2025, the House and Senate Conference Committee met. The Conference Committee recommended that the Senate adopt the House Amendments. On March 26, 2025, the Senate acceded to the House Amendments Yea: 40 Nay: 0, sending the approved bill to the Governor for consideration.

SB237: Child Support; requiring courts to consider the value of retirement accounts when ordering child support. (SENATE PASSED 40-0)(AMENDED PASSED HOUSE 118-0)(CONFERENCE)(INCORPORATED INTO HB2062)

This bill was introduced through the Senate Judiciary Committee by request on February 6, 2025. It would require that if a child support obligor had been criminally convicted or lost a professional license for listed reasons, child support would not be modifiable. It also provides that child support would be collected from retirement accounts. There are many problems with this bill, including that it double counts some items for child support, violates federal prohibitions, and seems more retributive than remedial.

The bill was assigned to the Senate Judicary Committee for hearings. The Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Friday, February 14, 2025, at 10:30 o’clock a.m. in Room 346-S. Ronald W. Nelson testified as a neutral on the bill, supporting limited access to retirement funds for significantly past due child support accumulations but opposing other provisions in the bill that duplicate already-in-force provisions of the Kansas child support guidelines without the nuance required for individual cases or in line with federal requirements. Alan Conroy, Executive Director of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) also provided neutral testimony focused specifically on problems with the language used in sections allowing for garnishment of retirement plans and accounts. Marcilyn Martinez, Director of Child Support Services, provided opposition testimony, pointing out the various federal mandates for child support violated by the bill’s existing provisions, as well as the problems inherent in stating that child support would be determined by reference to a retirement plan or account balance. On February 18, 2025, the Committee passed out an amended version of the bill that addressed the concerns about multiple recoveries for arrearages against retirement plans but left intact the other problematic provisions. The Senate Committee amendments to the bill sought to (1) clarify that a parent must have accumulated a child support arrearage for retirement accounts to be considered; (2) provide that the arrearage would be paid by a one-time lump-sum distribution; and (3) clarify that the distribution would be subject to early withdrawal penalties and taxable income. The bill was withdrawn from the Calendar on February 20, 2025, at turn-around and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means to protect the bill. On February 25, 2025, the bill was withdrawn from Senate Committee on Ways and Means and referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole. On March 6, 2025, the Senate Committee of the Whole considered the bill. Sen. Warren (R-Johnson County) offered an amendment to: (1) clarify that a parent must have accumulated a child support arrearage for retirement accounts to be considered; (2) provide that the arrearage would be paid by a one-time lump-sum distribution; (3) clarify that the distribution would be subject to early withdrawal penalties and taxable income; and (4) make a technical correction. The full Senate voted Yea: 40 Nay: 0 to adopt the Committee of the Whole amended bill, sending it to the House for consideration.

The bill was introduced into the House on March 7, 2025, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearings. The House set a hearing on the bill for Monday, March 17, 2025, at 3:30 PM in Room 582-N. That same day, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the bill as amended by Senate Committee of the Whole, be passed. The House Committee of the Whole considered the bill on March 20,2025. During debate, an amendment by Rep. Dan Osman (D-OP) was submitted and adopted. Rep. Osman’s amendment removed provisions in the bill that would have excluded from the definition of a “material change” to modify child support loss of income resulting from criminal behavior, voluntary unemployment, and professional misconduct (which Ronald W. Nelson had recommended be removed in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee). On Emergency Final Action that same day, the House passed the Amended bill Yea: 118 Nay: 0.

On March 24, 2025, the House and Senate sent the bill to Conference to resolve the differences in Senate and House versions of the bill. In Conference Committee, the Committee incorporated this bill into HB2062, the far-right “fetus support” bill intended as a way to force Kansas to consider embryos as “persons,” including an even more mind-boggling concept of granting income tax exemptions for embryos.

SB264: Child care subsidies; removing noncooperation with state authorities seeking child support enforcement from the list of disqualifications for child care subsidies.

This bill was introduced on February 11, 2025, through the Senate Committee on Ways and Means by Sen. Pat Pettey (D-Wyandotte). The bill would remove as a requirement to obtain child care subsidies under federally funded programs that the recipient of the subsidy must cooperate with the state’s actions to obtain and enforce child support against the other parent.

The bill was assigned on February 13, 2025, to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means for hearings.

House:

HB2026: Marriage; requiring persons to be 18 years of age or older to be eligible to give consent for marriage; excluding certain days from being counted toward the current three-day waiting period

This bill was introduced on January 16, 2025, by Rep. Stephanie Clayton (D-Johnson County). It would change Kansas law to mandate that a person must be at least 18 years of age to get married, and it would also eliminate exceptions currently recognized by Kansas law (parental consent). Rep. Clayton filed the same bill in 2021 (2021HB2422) and 2024 (2024HB2046). The bill introduced in 2021 was heard by the House Federal & State Affairs Committee without opposition and with tens of presenters speaking in favor. Because the bill was introduced close to the end of the 2021 Session, however, the Committee did not advance it. The 2024 bill did not receive a hearing. Similar proposals have been pushed for decades throughout the world by various organizations (including the International Academy of Family Lawyers) and other advocates to stop children from being abused and enslaved by their families. In an article about the previous bill from 2021, the Kansas City Star noted that Clayton’s 2021 bill was the first attempt to change the minimum age for marriage in Kansas in recent years. Until 2006, the state allowed children of any age to marry with parental permission. That year, the Kansas Legislature finally limited the state’s practice of allowing common-law marriages only to those persons who were aged 18 or older. 

The bill was assigned to the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee for hearings.

HB2062: “Child support” for fetuses. (PASSED HOUSE 85-34)(AMENDED PASSED SENATE 30-9) (CONFERENCE) (CCR)(SENATE PASSED CCR 31-9) (HOUSE PASSED CCR 87-38)(GOVERNOR VETOED APRIL 9, 2025)(HOUSE OVERRIDES VETO 87-38)

This bill was introduced on January 22, 2025, through the House Judiciary Committee at the request of Rep. L. Williams (R-Lenexa). It is a repeat of a bill introduced on January 31, 2024, by Rep.Leah Howell (R-Derby) on behalf of Kansas Family Voice, a right-wing, anti-choice, “conservative Christian” advocacy group. The bill would amend KSA 20-165, which sets out the factors the Kansas Supreme Court should consider in adopting and modifying child support guidelines required by federal law. The bill would require the Supreme Court to adopt rules that consider the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses for the mother of an unborn child and the unborn child. Additionally, the bill would specify the maximum amount of ordered child support of an unborn child is not to exceed the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the mother of the unborn child, excluding any costs related to an elective abortion. (Kansas law already allows for assessing birth expenses–including expenses related to pregnancy–in a parentage case. The insertion of this provision for consideration of birth expenses in child support guidelines is an uneducated attempt to insert anti-choice rhetoric into parentage cases through the guidelines–at a statutory location where it simply does not belong).

The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearings. The bill was set for hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 582-N. On the day of the hearing, over eighty-three people submitted written testimony opposed to the bill. Three proponents submitted testimony in favor, including Kansans for “Life.” As noted by the Kansas Reflector, the bill “was written by Kansas Family Voice, an anti-[choice] [“]Christian[“] advocacy group that also testified in favor of a gender-affirming care ban for trans youth this week. A nearly identical bill last year died in committee.” Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, (D-Overland Park) said she wasn’t sure of the point of the bill because much of its contents already exist in law. 

On February 11, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the full House pass the bill without amendment. On February 18, 2025, the House Committee of the Whole debated the bill. Two proposals to amend the bill were made. The Committee of the Whole adopted an amendment removing a reference to an “unborn child” in the factors to be considered by the Supreme Court in adopting Child Support Guidelines, replacing “unborn” with “mother’s” in the provision governing the amount of child support to be determined. On February 19, 2025, the House passed the bill as amended in the House Committee of the Whole Yea: 85 Nay: 34, sending the bill on to the Senate for consideration.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on February 19, 2025, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for February 27, 2025, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. Many of the same proponents and opponents to the bill who testified in the House Commitee testified to the Senate Committee. The opposition testimony is best summarized with testimony from Loud Light Civic Action, that “‬If this bill is actually about child support, then it is redundant.” Notwithstanding all the problems with the bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that the bill be passed by the Senate as passed by the House on March 5, 2025. The Senate Committee of the Whole considered the bill on March 11, 2025. Democratic Senators offered a number of amendments on the floor: Senator Cindy Holscher (D-Overland Park) proposed an amendment striking all of the language in the bill and repealing KSA 20-165. Senator David Haley (D-Kansas City) proposed an amendment would insert new language providing that child support would be paid by any person convicted of killing a child’s a parent. Both amendments were rejected. A third proposed amendment was made by Senator Patrick Schmidt (D-Topeka). Sen. Schmidt’s amendment would the bill’s language to add a $2,320 tax deduction for a fetus assigned a taxpayer identification number by the state Department Revenue. On voice vote, the amendment passed. Schmidt was roundly criticized by many after his amendment passed. The bill, as it emerged from the Senate, was described by abortion opponents who advocated for the legislation as a “game changer for Kansas families,” noted the Sunflower State Journal. Rep. Alexis Simmons (D-Topeka) sharply criticized Schmidt and his amendment: “He has turned women’s rights into rungs on his political ladder that he dirties with his nasty desire to troll the Republican Party,” she said, according to the Sunflower State Journal. On March 12, 2025, the amended bill passed the Senate Yea: 30 Nay: 9 with Schmidt voting against the bill.

The House and Senate non-concurred, sending the bill to Conference Committee. On March 25, 2025, the Conference Committee agreed to disagree. On March 26, 2025, a second Conference Committee was appointed. The second Conference Committee agreed to recommend that the contents of HB2062, as passed by the Senate, and further amended the bill to modify how tax exemptions may be allowed for an
unborn child, and to add the contents of SB237, as passed by the House, which would allow collection of overdue child support from the obligor’s retirement accounts and plans. The bill would require that fetal support be calculated from the date of conception by the mother’s child, and interest would be determined by the current statutory rate. The bill would limit the maximum amount of child support to the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the mother, excluding any costs related to an elective abortion–all of which is already provided under current law, so the bill does nothing other than push forward a starkly religious view of “personhood” onto a non-secular country. On March 26, 2025, the Senate approved the CCR Yea: 31 Nay: 9. On March 27, 2025, the House approved the CCR Yea: 87 Nay: 38, sending the bill to the Governor for an expected veto.

The bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on Monday, March 31, 2025. The Governor vetoed the horrible bill on Wednesday, April 9, 2025. In her veto statement, the Governor noted, “At first glance, this bill may appear to be a proposal to support pregnant women and families. However, this bill is yet another attempt by special interest groups and extremist lawmakers to ignore the will of Kansans and insert themselves into the lives of those making private medical decisions. It is a place where this Legislature has become all too comfortable — particularly for those who espouse freedom from government overreach.”

On April 10, 2025, the House attempt to override the Governor’s veto prevailed Yea: 87 Nay: 38.

HB2075: CINC; requiring a permanency hearing for a child in custody be held within nine months from child’s removal from the home. (PASSED HOUSE 119-0)(AMENDED PASSED SENATE 40-0)(CONFERENCE)(HOUSE APPROVED CCR 123-0)(SENATE APPROVED CCR 38-0)(GOVERNOR APPROVED APRIL 8, 2025)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025)

This bill was introduced on January 23, 2025, by the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care at the request of Laura Howard, Secretary for Children and Families. The bill would reduce the required time for a permanency hearing in a CINC matter from 12 months to 9 months after a child’s removal from the child’s home.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care for hearings. The bill was set for hearing on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Room 152-S. As a result of a massive snowstorm and blizzard that came through Northeast Kansas, a continuation hearing was set for Friday, February 7, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Room 152-S. A representative of the Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) provided neutral testimony on the bill, noting concerns about the effectiveness of reducing the time between permanency hearings and the potential burden district courts may face if not given adequate time to implement the new hearing schedule. On February 13, 2025, the House Committee amended the bill to require subsequent permanency hearings be held every six months. On February 19, 2025, the bill passed the House on Yea: 119 Nay: 0.

The bill, as passed by the House, was introduced into the Senate on February 19, 2025, and assigned to the Senate Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care. The Senate Committee set a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, March 5, 2025, at 8:30 AM in Room 142-S. On March 10, 2025, the Committee passed an amended version of the bill with technical changes. The bill was considered by the Senate Committee of the Whole on March 17, 2025, and on motion by Sen. Faust Goudeau (D-Wichita) further amended the bill to require confirmation of the Secretary’s reasonable efforts at reintegration prior to a permanency hearing and to require the court to make a finding at each permanency hearing regarding reasonable efforts made for reintegration. As amended, the Senate passed the bill Yea: 40 Nay: 0 on March 18, 2025.

Both the House and the Senate approved a Conference Committee. On March 25, 2025, the Conference Committee agreed to the provisions of HB2075, as passed by the House, and further amended the bill to: (1) add a provision requiring law enforcement officers to explore options other than taking a child into custody; (2) add a provision requiring the Secretary to receive law enforcement referrals related to a child who may be the victim of abuse or neglect and provide an update to the referring law enforcement agency within 24 hours of making contact with the subjects of the investigation; and (3) require the court to review the involvement and receipt of written permanency plans by the parents and interested parties during each permanency hearing. The Senate approved the CCR on March 25, 2025 Yea: 38 Nay: 0. That same day, the House approved the CCR Yea: 123 Nay: 0, sending the approved bill to the Governor for signature.

The Governor signed the bill on April 8, 2025. The bill will go into effect upon publication in the statute book on July 1, 2025.

HB2076: CINC; reducing the authorized number of days a child may be placed in a secure facility and eliminating the court’s option to extend such authorization.

This bill was introduced on January 23, 2025, by the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care at the request of Laura Howard, Secretary for Children and Families. The bill would reduce the number of days a child may be placed in a secure facility from 60 days to 45 days.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care for hearings.

HB2181: Kansas Uniform Arbitration Act.

This bill was introduced on January 30, 2025, by the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice. The bill was previously introduced into the Kansas Legislature in 2020 and in 2022. This bill would enact the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act (UFLAA). If enacted, Kansas would be the fifth state to adopt the UFLAA (North Dakota, Arizona, Hawaii, and Montana being the other states that have adopted the Act) since it was proposed in 2016. The UFLAA was previously introduced in the 2020 legislative session as 2020HB2533, and again in the 2022 legislative session as 2022HB2496. In 2023, the bill was introduced as 2023HB2017. In 2020, the bill died when it was stricken from the House Calendar after being passed out of the House Judiciary Committee favorably, because of adjournment of the Covid-19 shortened 2020 session. The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the bill in the 2022 session, with the full House passing the bill 121-0. In 2022, the bill died when it was not taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2023, the bill pass the House Yea: 122 Nay: 0, sending it to the Senate for Consideration. The bill was received and introduced into the Kansas Senate on February 1, 2023, and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration on February 2, 2023. The Senate Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill, but it was passed over by the Senate Committee on the day of the hearing without comment. 

The uniform act sets out arbitration procedures chronologically, from defining an arbitration agreement to providing standards for vacating a confirmed award. Many of the provisions of the UFLAA are familiar to arbitrators and practitioners in the dispute resolution field because the UFLAA is based in part on the Uniform Arbitration Act (1955) and Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (2000) (which was adopted by the Kansas Legislature in 2017). The UFLAA’s provisions for arbitrator disclosure, award, appeals, and arbitrator immunity, among others, are drawn substantially from these earlier uniform acts. Since family law disputes are different from traditional commercial disputes, however, the UFLAA contains some key provisions that do not appear in the Uniform Arbitration Act or Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. The Reporter for the UFLAA was Washburn Law School Professor Linda Elrod.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice for hearings. On February 5, 2025, the bill was withdrawn from the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and referred instead to the House Committee on Judiciary.

HB2182: Protection Orders; prohibiting sheriffs from charging service fees (PASSED HOUSE 118-1)(PASSED SENATE 40-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED MARCH 26, 2025)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025)

This bill was introduced on January 30, 2025, by the House Judiciary Committee at the request of the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. The bill would prohibit any Kansas sheriff from charging a fee for service of process for any proceeding pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Act, Protection From Stalking Act, or any similar proceeding filed under similar laws in other jurisdictions. The bill was needed because more county sheriffs started charging for service of papers to recoup their costs even though those kinds of fees were generally disfavored.

The bill was assigned to the House Judicary Committee for hearings. The Committee set the bill for hearing on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 3:30 PM in Room 582-N. At that hearing, KCASDV testified that it learned “that by not having statutory clarity on a “no fees” process for protection order service, Kansas has come under scrutiny by the Federal government because the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) prohibits jurisdictions that receive VAWA STOP funding (which Kansas does), from charging victims for costs associated with civil and criminal cases.” On February 7, 202, the House Judiciary Committee amended the bill to also exempt fees for service of process for similar proceedings based on the laws of another jurisdiction and recommended the amended bill be passed on the consent calendar. On February 18, 2025, the House Committee of the Whole recommended the bill be passed. The full House passed the bill Yea: 118 Nay: 1 on February 19, 2025, sending the bill to the Senate for consideration.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on February 19, 2025, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings. The bill was set for a hearing on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 13, 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended bill be passed and placed on the Consent Calendar. On March 18, 2025, the bill as amended by the House passed the Senate Yea: 40 Nay: 0, sending the bill to the Governor for signature.

 Governor Kelly signed the bill on Monday, March 26, 2025. The bill becomes effective July 1, 2025.

HB2192: Crimes; Domestic battery; prohibiting work release to a person convicted of a second or third offense of domestic battery (HOUSE PASSED 123-0)(AMENDED PASSED SENATE 39-1)(CONFERENCE)

This bill was introduced through the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice on January 31, 2025. It would require that a person convicted of domestic battery serve at least 90 days in jail and would prohibit a work release for a person convicted of a second or third offense of domestic battery during that time.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice. The Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Monday, February 10, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Room 546-S. In the House Committee hearing, proponent testimony was presented by Rep. Mike Thompson (R-Bonner Springs); the Johnson County District Attorney’s Office and the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. The proponents generally stated this bill would give victims of domestic battery more time to make adjustments to their lives before their batterer is potentially put in a position to commit further offenses and that this legislation could save lives. The House Committee amended the bill to: (1) require the domestic violence offender assessment be conducted on first-time offenders, and (2) remove the word “consecutive” from provisions of the bill specifying the time an offender must serve. The bill was considered by the House Committee of the Whole on February 20, 2025. The House Committee of the Whole adopted a proposed amendment by Rep. Mike Thompson to lower the mandatory imprisonment length before work release or other release may be granted for second-time offenders to 20 days from 45 days. On Emergency Final Action the House adopted the amended bill Yea: 123 Nay: 0, sending the bill to the Senate for consideration.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on February 25, 2025, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. The Senate Committee agreed to amend the bill to make the effective date upon publication in the Kansas Register (instead of publication in the statute book). The Senate Committee of the Whole recommended the bill, as amended, be approved. On that same day, on Emergency Final Action, the Senate passed the Senate Committee amended bill Yea: 39 Nay: 1.

On March 24, 2025, the House nonconcurred with the Senate amendment, sending it to Conference Commitee.

HB2198: Enacting the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act

This bill was introduced on January 31, 2025, by Rep. Barbara Ballard (D-Lawrence). It is a re-introduction of previous sessions’ filings of ‘red flag acts’ proposed in the 2018 and 2019 legislative sessions (2018HB2769 and 2019HB2129). It would provide a way for police and family members to petition the district court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs for consideration.

HB2207: CINC; authorizing parents of a child subject to investigation to access those investigative records

This bill was introduced on February 3, 2025, through the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care. It would allow the parents of a child who is the subject of an investigation of abuse or neglect or a child in need of care proceeding and victims of childhood abuse or neglect to access the court records and social file for that such investigation or proceeding. The bill would also require that the court or agency must provide the information from the court file and social file to the requesting parent within three days of the request–excluding the identities of any person who reported the abuse or neglect. The bill is amazingly over broad, and incredibly dangerous for any child who may be in protective custody.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care for hearings. The bill was scheduled for a hearing to be held on Monday, February 10, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Room 152-S. The hearing was canceled.

HB 2302: CINC; requiring a law enforcement officer to contact and consult with the secretary for children and families before taking a child into custody

This bill was introduced on February 5, 2025, by Rep. Jerrod Ousley (D-Merriam). It would amend KSA 38-2231, which provides for law enforcement to remove a child from a place or residence if the officer reasonably believes the child will be harmed if not immediately removed. The proposed amendment would require the officer first contact and receive a response from the Department of Children and Families before the removal — and require that DCF provide a rapid response to such inquiries whenever made.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care for hearings.

HB2311: Foster care; prohibiting policies for placement, custody and appointment of a custodian that may conflict with “sincerely held” religious or moral beliefs “regarding sexual orientation or gender identity” (PASSED HOUSE 84-36)(AMENDED PASSED SENATE 31-9)(GOVERNOR VETOED APRIL 3, 2025)(HOUSE OVERRIDES VETO 87-38)

This bill was introduced on February 6, 2025, through the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care. It would prohibit the Department of Children and Families from adopting or enforcing any policy for placement, custody, or appointment of a custodian that “may conflict with the ‘sincerely held’ beliefs of the foster parent regarding sexual orientation or gender identity” further diving into the culture wars by instituting religious-based beliefs of one fringe group over the entire population.

The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care for hearings. The Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Monday, February 17, 2025, at 1:30 PM Room in 152-S. In the House Committee hearing, proponent testimony was provided by representatives of three right-wing groups and three private citizens. The proponents generally stated that the bill would allow more families to adopt and foster children within the child welfare system. Opponent testimony was provided by Equality Kansas, Kansas Interfaith Action, Mainstream Coalition, and six private citizens who voiced their concerns for harm to members of the LGBTQ+ community in the child welfare system, discrimination based on relgion and enabling attempts to indoctrinate young people by foster parents, and other concerns. Rija Khan, the first women of color, first Muslim, and first Asian to ever serve as Student Body President at Wichita State University provided powerful opposition testimony in opposition to the bill saying that “by allowing foster parents to reject or discourage a child’s identity based on personal beliefs, this bill limits the number of affirming homes available. Instead of prioritizing what is best for Kansas children in foster care, it prioritizes the preferences of adults—even when those preferences may be harmful. This bill also opens the door to discrimination. It allows agencies to favor certain caregivers over others based on religious or moral beliefs, even if those caregivers may not provide the most supportive environment.” On February 18, 2025, the Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care recommended the bill be passed as introduced. The House Committee of the Whole considered the bill on February 19, 2025, and made the bill even worse by adopting an amendment proposed by Rep. Cindi Howerton (R-Wichita) that would exclude DCF contractors from liability for their discriminatory and religiously biased acts towards a foster child and removing punitive damages as a possible form of relief if the provisions of the bill were violated. An amendment by Rep. Susan Ruiz (D-Shawnee) that would have gutted the bill was rejected Yea: 36 Nay: 84. The bill was considered by the Full House the next day on February 20, 2025, passing Yea: 86 Nay: 37.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on February 25, 2025, and referred to the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare for hearings. The Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, March 12, 2025, at 8:30 AM in Room 142-S. The same proponents testified to the Senate Committee that testified in the House Committee. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Equality Kansas, Kansas Interfaith Action, Loud Light Civic Action, and Mainstream Coalition, a social worker who researches the LGBTQ community, and one private citizen. The testimony was substantially similar to the testimony provided during the House Committee hearing. On March 18, 2025, the Senate Committee amended the bill to take effect on publication in the Kansas Register. The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill onto the full Senate on March 20, 2025. The full Senate adopted the amended bill  Yea: 31 Nay: 9.

On March 24, 2025, the House concurred in the Senate amendment Yea: 84 Nay: 38, sending the bill to the Governor.

The Governor vetoed the bill on April 3, 2025.

On April 10, 2025, a House vote to override the Governor’s veto prevailed  Yea: 87 Nay: 38.

HB2356: Uniform Nonparent Visitation Act; reducing the evidentiary standard required.

This bill was introduced through the House Judiciary Committee on February 7, 2025, by Rep. Alcala (D-Topeka) on behalf of a constituent, Diana Swafford. The bill would make a few drastic changes to the uniform nonparent visitation act, which was adopted by Kansas effective July 1, 2024: first, it would lower the standard a third party must show from “harm to the child” for a third party to show in order to obtain visitation over the objection of a parent to the “denial of visitation would be unreasonable.” It would also expand the time in which the third party must have had a significant relationship with the child before the filing of the action from one year to two years. Finally, the bill would reduce the standard of proof to overcome a parent’s constitutional right to refuse contact with their child from “clear and convincing” evidence (a standard meant to protect a parent’s constitutional right to parent from arbitrary action) to“substantial evidence of the facts” — essentially that a third party could overcome constitutionally protect rights merely by a judge arbitrarily deciding that judge could make a better decision about a parent’s child than the parent themself.

The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

HB2359: Enacting the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act and the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act. (PASSED HOUSE 89-34)(PASSED SENATE 40-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED APRIL 3, 2025)(EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026)

This bill was introduced to the House Judiciary Committee on February 7, 2025, at the recommendation of the Kansas Judicial Council. The bill would amend the current Kansas guardianship act and would also finally enact the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA), which has been enacted in 46 other states as well as 3 other U.S. territories. The UAGPPJA is based on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which has been adopted in 49 states. It addresses three interstate jurisdictional issues that arise with guardianships and conservatorships. First, it provides a priority system among jurisdictions in which a conservatorship or guardianship may be filed. Second, it provides a simplified transfer process when guardianship is either filed in an improper jurisdiction or when the ward moves from state to state. Finally, it allows a guardian to register an out of state guardianship to make it easier for the guardian to obtain needed services for the ward in a state in which the guardianship is not filed. The Judicial Council’s Guardianship Committee found the UGCOPAA is much better organized and more clearly written than the existing Kansas act. It also contains some new concepts that will improve Kansas guardianship and conservatorship law, including it’s person centered philosophy.

The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Committee set the bill for hearing on February 12, 2025, at 3:30 PM in Room 582-N, but the hearing was canceled the day of the hearing (due to a severe winter storm warning). The hearing on the bill was rescheduled for Thursday, February 13, 2025, at 3:30 PM in Room 582-N. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Big Tent Coalition, Disability Rights Center of Kansas, Kansans for Life, Kansas Catholic Conference, and Self Advocate Coalition of Kansas. The opponents expressed concern regarding the amount of discretion a guardian would
have to make certain end-of-life decisions under the bill. On February 18, 2025, the Committee recommended the bill be passed with an amendment to incorporate additional provisions regarding a guardian’s ability to make certain end-of-life decisions. The House Committee of the Whole considered the bill on February 20, 2025. The full House passed the amended bill Yea: 89 Nay: 34.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on February 25, 2025, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Committee set the bill for a hearing for Wednesday, March 5, 2025, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. Additional testimony was taken at a hearing set for Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. All of the proponents and opponents who spoke in the House Committee testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but all favored the House amended bill. One opponent testified. The Senate Committee of the Whole considered the bill on March 19, 2025. On Emergency Final Action, the full Senate passed the bill that same day, Yea: 40 Nay: 0.

The Governor signed the bill on April 3, 2025. The new act will go into force on January 1, 2026.

HB2403: Dead Bodies; Establishing order of priority of a decedent’s surviving parents who cannot agree on the disposition of such decedent’s remains.

This bill was introduced through the House Committee on State and Federal Affairs on March 6, 2025, by Rep. Cindi Howerton (R-Wichita). It would specify that if a decedent’s surviving parents cannot agree on the disposition of the decedent’s remains within 60 days of death, then the mother alone would have first priority for a period of 30 days. If the mother does not order the final disposition of the remains within the 30-day period, then the father would be given first priority. The bill would allow any such parent who is incarcerated to sign a notarized statement to authorize final disposition.

The bill was assigned to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee for hearings.