SESSION OF 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 2536
As Amended by House Committee on Child
Welfare and Foster Care
Brief*
HB 2536, as amended, would establish a new legal
permanency option for children 16 years of age or older who
are in the custody of the Secretary for Children and Families
(Secretary). The bill would also amend various statutes
contained in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children
(CINC Code) to reference this new form of permanency,
which would be designated as “SOUL Family Legal
Permanency” (SFLP).
Establishment of SOUL Family Legal Permanency (New
Section 1)
The appointment of SOUL Family Legal Permanency
(SFLP) could be made with:
●Agreement and approval of a child 16 years of age
or older;
●Agreement and consent of the child’s parent unless
there has been a finding of unfitness or termination
of parental rights and consent is no longer
required; and
●Approval of the court set forth in a court order.
The bill would allow a court to order SFLP:
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org ●After a finding of parental unfitness;
●After termination of parental rights; or
●When determined to be in the best interests of the
child and the requirements of the appointment
described above are met.
Parental Consent Requirements
When parental consent is required for the appointment
of SFLP, the bill would require the consent to be in writing and
acknowledged by a judge of a court of record or before an
officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments. The bill
would require that before any consent is acknowledged by a
court of record, the court must advise the consenting parent
of the consequences of the consent by asking five questions,
as specified by the bill.
Parental consent would be final when executed, unless
the parent contesting consent proves by clear and convincing
evidence the consent was not freely and voluntarily given.
The bill would specify the burden of proving consent was not
freely and voluntarily given rests with the contesting parent.
The bill would require the parent to contest consent prior to
the issuance of the order appointing a SFLP custodian.
The bill would also specify that when a parent has
consented to SFLP based upon a belief that the child’s other
parent would also consent or be found unfit but the other
parent does not consent, the consent would be null and void.
Potential SFLP Custodian Review
Prior to making the SFLP appointment, the bill would
require the Secretary to submit a report to the court
containing the following determinations:
2- 2536 ●The ability and suitability of a potential custodian to
care for the child, after observing the child in the
home of the custodian with whom the child will
reside;
●Whether the names of any potential SFLP
custodians appear on the Department for Children
and Families (DCF) Child Abuse and Neglect
Registry;
●Whether any potential SFLP custodians have been
convicted of any crime specified in KSA 59-
2132(e); and
●The consideration of the appointment of a relative
or an individual with whom the child has close
emotional ties, to the extent the Secretary
determines the appointment to be in the best
interests of the child.
Review and Approval by the Court
Prior to ordering SFLP, the bill would require the court to
review and consider the Secretary’s report described above
and additional information provided by the Secretary related
to benefits of the SFLP, including, but not limited to, financial
support, medical coverage, and educational support if SFLP
is established. The bill would require the court ensures the
child has access to the maximum allowable benefits available
under other legal permanency options.
When appointing SFLP, the bill would require the court
to consider, to the extent the court finds it in the child’s best
interest, appointing a relative or an individual with whom the
child has close emotional ties. The bill would provide if a court
appoints more than one individual as SFLP custodian, the
child and the individual may be unrelated.
The bill would provide that upon the establishment of
SFLP, the Secretary’s custody would end, and the court’s
3- 2536 jurisdiction over the child would continue unless the court
enters an order terminating jurisdiction.
Effect of SFLP on Parental Rights
If SFLP is ordered after a judicial finding of parental
unfitness without a termination of parental rights, the bill
would provide all parental rights transfer to the SFLP
custodian, except for:
●The obligation to pay child support and medical
support;
●The right to inherit from the child; and
●The right to consent to adoption of the child.
If SFLP is ordered after termination of parental rights,
the bill would provide the parent retains no rights or
responsibilities to the child upon termination.
Rights and Responsibilities of Custodian
Pursuant to the bill, a custodian would stand in loco
parentis to the child and exercise all the rights and
responsibilities of a parent, except that the custodian could
not consent to an adoption of the child or be subject to court-
ordered child support or medical support for the child. [Note:
“In loco parentis” means acting in the place of a parent.]
The bill would also allow a custodian to share parental
responsibilities with a parent of a child if the custodian
believes it is in the best interests of the child, and there has
not been a finding of parental unfitness or another court-
ordered limitation. However, this would not relieve the
custodian of legal responsibility.
The bill would allow the court, upon motion of parties,
interested parties, or its own motion, to impose limitations or
4- 2536 conditions upon the rights and responsibilities of the
custodian, if determined by the court to be in the best
interests of the child.
Documentation Required to be Filed With the Court
The bill would require certain documents to be signed
and filed with the court with respect to the appointment of a
custodian:
●A document confirming the custodian’s willingness
to serve as custodian; and
●An order of the court appointing such custodian.
When Multiple Custodians Appointed
When more than one custodian has been appointed, the
bill would require the court to designate one individual as
primary custodian, with the approval of the child and the
individual. This primary custodian would be required to
consider information provided by the child and other
custodians for possible resolution in any dispute that may
arise between the child and the custodian, or between
multiple custodians.
The bill would allow the court to order alternative dispute
resolution upon motion by the child or custodian if a dispute
remains unresolved prior to:
●The child reaching 18 years of age;
●June 1 of the school year in which the child
reached 18 years of age, if still attending high
school.
In the event the court has previously terminated
jurisdiction of a child’s case, the bill would direct that a court
5- 2536 could reinstate the jurisdiction to consider a motion for
alternative dispute resolution.
Effect of Divorce
The bill would provide if custodians are married at the
time of the appointment but subsequently divorce, the
marriage is annulled, or the court orders separate
maintenance with respect to the custodians, the court would
be required to make custody determinations between the
custodians.
Rights of Inheritance
The bill would require the custodians to consider, and
separately sign, agreements stating whether they will provide
any rights of inheritance to the child and medical power of
attorney for the child.
Other Supportive Individuals
The bill would state a court could also recognize other
individuals who testify to the court that they will provide
support to the child, at the request and approval of the child
and custodian. The bill would specify such individuals do not
have legal obligations or rights related to the child.
Amendments to CINC Code
Definitions (Section 2)
The bill would define the term “Support, Opportunity,
Unity, Legal Relationships Family Legal Permanency” or
“SOUL Family Legal Permanency” to mean the appointment
of one or more adults, approved by a child who is 16 years of
age or older and the subject of a child in need of care (CINC)
proceeding. The bill would add the establishment of SFLP as
6- 2536 one outcome of the permanency planning process in the
definition of “permanency goal.”
The bill would also make a technical amendment to add
the definition of “behavioral health crisis” in this section.
[Note: This is a technical amendment reconciling two versions
of the statute enacted during the 2023 Legislative Session
and is not new language.]
Other Provisions (Sections 3-9)
The bill would add references to SFLP in sections of the
CINC Code where other types of permanency are discussed,
including provisions governing: jurisdiction; contents of the
CINC petition; authorized dispositions in a CINC case;
permanency hearings; request for termination of parental
rights and appointment of custodian; and voluntary
relinquishment and appointment of custodian. [Note: Only
substantive amendments are described below.]
In the section governing jurisdiction, the bill would
specify that when a child has been ordered a SFLP
custodian, the court’s jurisdiction over the child may continue
until:
●The child has reached 18 years of age; or
●June 1 of the school year in which the child
reached 18 years of age, if still attending high
school.
In the section governing the voluntary relinquishment
and appointment of a permanent custodian, the bill would
specify when a parent voluntarily relinquishes his or her rights
to a SFLP custodian, a parent may consent to the
custodianship pursuant to provisions outlined in New Section
1 of the bill. The bill would provide if the individual designated
as the SFLP custodian consents to the appointment and is
approved by the court, the custodian would have all the rights
and responsibilities of a permanent custodian, subject to the
7- 2536 provisions of New Section 1. The bill would also require each
consent to the appointment of a SFLP custodian to be in
writing and signed by either parent or legal guardian of the
child.
The bill would also make technical amendments
throughout to ensure consistency in statutory phrasing.
Background
The bill was introduced by the House Committee on
Child Welfare and Foster Care at the request of a
representative of the Children’s Alliance of Kansas (CAK).
In the House Committee hearing, two private citizens,
four representatives of the SFLP Implementation Team, and
representatives of CAK, Center for the Rights of Abused
Children, DCF, FosterAdopt Connect, Kansas Action for
Children, Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, and
KVC Kansas testified as proponents of the bill. The
proponents stated that creating this permanency option would
address the specific needs of older foster youth who would
benefit from establishing legal relationships with supportive
adults in their lives, while still maintaining legal relationships
with birth parents and siblings.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by one
private citizen and representatives of Cornerstones of Care,
Kansas Citizens Review Custody to Transition Panel, and
Kansas Family Advisory Network.
Written-only neutral testimony was provided by a
representative of Saint Francis Ministries.
No other testimony was provided.
The House Committee adopted a technical amendment
to correct a grammatical error.
8- 2536 Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, as introduced, DCF indicates
enactment of the bill would result in a fiscal effect on
expenditures of the agency for fiscal years (FYs) 2024, 2025,
and 2026, as follows:
●FY 2024: $714,199;
●FY 2025: $2,364,741; and
●FY 2026: $2,429,939.
[Note: The fiscal note provides a list of assumptions that
were used in calculating the bill’s fiscal impact on DCF,
including:
●25.0 percent of youth who age out of the foster
care system and all youth ages 16 and over who
currently exit guardianship would establish SFLP;
●All youth who are expected to establish SFLP
would have formerly aged out of foster care making
costs related to the young adult subsidy,
independent living start-up costs, and vehicle
repair and maintenance costs budget neutral; and
●44 young people would opt for SFLP in FY 2024;
91 in FY 2025, and 135 in FY2026.]
The Office of Judicial Information indicates enactment of
the bill would have a negligible fiscal effect on expenditures of
the Judicial Branch and would not affect revenues. Any fiscal
effect associated with enactment of the bill is not reflected in
The FY 2025 Governor’s Budget Report.
Children; minors; Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children; permanency; SOUL
Family Legal Permanency; parental rights
9- 2536