Committee hears bill to require DCF memoranda of understanding with military installations on child‑welfare coordination

House Bill 22‑43 requires the Secretary for Children and Families (DCF) to enter memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with military installations so that children of military personnel who are the subject of child‑in‑need‑of‑care (CINC) investigations may be referred, where appropriate, to installation Family Advocacy Programs (FAP).

Jason Thompson (Revisor’s Office) briefed the bill: its main change is a new section in the CINC code creating a required referral pathway for cases involving military parents stationed at an installation; DCF would still retain authority to file petitions or otherwise protect children when necessary. The bill also asks the secretary to inquire during intake—when practicable—about military affiliation so referrals can be made.

Tammy Perot (transcript: representing "Department of War") testified on behalf of the Department of Defense and said Kansas should adopt statute to ensure MOUs are established and maintained; she said the change supports about 15,000 active‑duty military children in the state and helps meet federal coordination requirements (citing Title 10 obligations and DOD guidance for Family Advocacy Programs).

Ashley Johnson (Director of Safety and Thriving Families, DCF) said DCF supports the bill and already has MOUs or pending agreements with Fort Riley, McConnell Air Force Base and Fort Leavenworth; she recommended three technical edits: define "military installation" for clarity, strike the word "preliminary" so mandated referrals apply to open investigations, and adjust language so MOUs are entered with military leadership (commanders/Garrison) rather than naming FAP units as counterparties.

Committee members asked about whether the National Guard and Reserve or geographically distributed guard members are covered and whether the bill's language needs to be clarified; witnesses said those issues could be clarified in amendments and MOUs vary by installation.

Ending: The Committee heard robust proponent testimony and recommended clarifying edits; no vote was taken and members signaled they would work amendments with sponsors and agencies.