Redefining Neglect: Why Kansas Must Stop Punishing Families for Being Poor
It has become increasingly clear that something is wrong with the way Kansas considers and reports neglect in the child welfare system. Currently in Kansas, neglect has been cited as the reason for removal in 62% of child removals since last July. The state defines neglect as, “acts or omissions by a parent, guardian or person responsible for the care of a child resulting in harm to a child, or presenting a likelihood of harm, and the acts or omissions are not due solely to the lack of financial means of the child’s parents or other custodian.” KSA 38-2202. While the statute has language about financial means, this alone hasn’t protected Kansas families from removals when neglect arises from issues of poverty.
The definition centers the “failure” on the part of the person(s) responsible for the child. Incidents considered neglect include a “failure” to provide necessities like food, clothes, and shelter; leaving a child without appropriate supervision; and not seeking adequate medical interventions unless it is due to the legitimate practice of religious beliefs. Importantly, this focus on perceived “failure” doesn’t consider the impacts of poverty. This is especially relevant as we see reductions in the availability and access to programs that provide support to families across the nation. These reductions are directly misaligned with research showing that child care subsidies, affordable housing, increased income through Earned Income Tax Credit, increasing wages, participation in SNAP and WIC, and Medicaid coverage are most effective at reducing poverty risk factors.
Already, 154,000 Kansas children live in homes with a family income less than twice the federal poverty level. These families, who are already doing their best to care for their children, may be making really difficult decisions between things like paying their electric bill to keep their home warm and safe in the winter, purchasing a weather-appropriate coat for their child, or buying groceries.
Should “failure” to do these things be considered neglect? Poverty creates these situations, but inability to pay bills, purchase clothes, put enough food on the table or gas in the car, and meet all the other necessities of a family, is not the same as being unwilling or refusing to do so. When we consider the distinction between ability and willingness critically, more questions arise. Should we be removing a child from a home where everything is being done to care for their child, but the family is still unable to meet all of their needs? What would happen if we provided resources directly to these families rather than providing resources to separate families to care for these children removed from their homes? Could this support keep children in their own homes, rather than putting them through the trauma of removal?
Many states have considered these questions, and taken steps to disconnect issues of poverty from neglect. For example, our Midwest neighbors in Iowa have taken steps to specify that neglect occurs when there is a financial ability to meet a child’s needs, or when support has been offered to achieve that ability, but the needs remain unmet. Legislators at the federal level have also been attempting to distinguish issues of poverty from an unwillingness to provide adequate care, with bills like the Family Poverty is Not Child Neglect Act.
Thankfully, Kansas is working to join those who’ve recognized the differences between willful neglect and poverty. HB 2132 was introduced in the House Child Welfare and Foster Care Committee this legislative session. While it did not make it over the finish line, an important discussion was started and support for change was set in motion, which will hopefully lead to the bill’s passage in 2026.
HB 2132 would change the definition of neglect from a “failure” to meet a child’s needs to an “unreasonable failure or refusal” to do so, following in the footsteps of change we’ve seen in states like Iowa. The changes in statute would require those potentially removing a child to consider if providing resources and support would ensure the child could safely stay in the home and have their needs met. It also reiterates that the inability to provide for a child due to inadequate financial resources alone is not neglect, taking another important step in disconnecting issues of poverty from the definition of neglect.
We must make it clear that Kansans value all of our children and their families. We should loudly convey our understanding of the inherent hardships of poverty, and our recognition that the struggles that come with navigating these hardships do not equate to negligence. We must come together as a community and move forward with the understanding that providing direct support to families is often most effective at keeping children safely at home. Investing in our families would be a more logical way to distribute resources than removing those children to pay for outsourced care.
