UPDATED
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).
House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care
In the House Committee hearing, proponent testimony
was provided by 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. 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
Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare
In the Senate Committee hearing, proponent testimony
was provided by three private citizens, four representatives of
the SFLP Implementation Team, and representatives of CAK,
FosterAdopt Connect, and Kansas Appleseed Center for Law
and Justice. The proponents stated the SFLP was designed
by and for young people who have foster care experience
and understand the need to build permanent long-term
relationships with adults. The SFLP option establishes
lifelong, strong relationships between a young person and
one or more adults with the legal status of family relationships
who support the young person in transitioning to adulthood
while not requiring termination of legal relationships with a
young person’s biological family.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by
representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union-Kansas,
Cornerstones of Care, DCF, Kansas Action for Children,
Kansas Division of the Child Advocate, KVC Kansas, Saint
Francis Ministries, and TFI Family Services.
No other testimony was provided.
When the Senate Committee took final action on the bill
on March 19, 2024, a representative of DCF provided
updated fiscal information that was submitted to the Division
of the Budget to revise the initial fiscal note.
Fiscal Information
[Note: An earlier fiscal note on this bill, as introduced,
was revised by DCF and is not applicable. The revised fiscal
note, as outlined below, describes the changes in the cost
estimates for fiscal years (FYs) 2024, 2025, and 2026 and the
reasons for such changes.]
According to the revised fiscal note prepared by the
Division of the Budget on the bill, as amended by the House
Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care, DCF indicates
9- 2536
enactment of the bill, in any version, would have a fiscal
effect on expenditures of the agency. DCF states that a
reduction of the length of stay for a youth in foster care would
make this program cost neutral. The average cost for a youth
in foster care for six months is $25,890. In year three (full
implementation) of this program if at least 32 (23.0 percent) of
the anticipated 135 youth have a shortened stay in foster care
by six months, the foster care savings would make this
program cost neutral to the state.
DCF worked in conjunction with the Annie E. Casey
Foundation and Mainspring Consulting to develop the costs
of implementing this new permanency option. Mainspring
began by collecting trend data provided by DCF to project the
number of young people who were likely to establish SOUL
families. Based on that data, detailed cost assumptions were
developed related to the benefits package designed by the
stakeholder group. Mainspring used the following
assumptions to calculate the costs of implementing the SFLP
Program:
● 25.0 percent of youth who age out and all youth
ages 16 and over who currently exit to
guardianship would establish SOUL families;
● Caregiver Benefits would be the same as provided
in the current Adoption Support Program;
● All youth who are expected to establish SFLP
would have formerly aged out of foster care making
young adult subsidy, independent living start-up
costs, and vehicle repair and maintenance cost
budget neutral;
● 40.0 percent of youth who are expected to
establish SFLP would be eligible to access state
funded post-secondary educational benefits; and
● 44 young people would be estimated to create a
SOUL family in FY 2024, 91 in FY 2025, and full

10- 2536
 implementation with 135 young people choosing
this option by FY 2026.
Based upon the above-listed assumptions, the estimate
of the total SOUL family costs for FYs 2024, 2025, and 2026,
including caregiver non-recurring expenses and one-time
payments, caregiver subsidy, and post-secondary educational
benefits costs, would be as follows:
● FY 2024: $175,261;
● FY 2025: $464,687; and
● FY 2026: $827,841.
In the initial DCF fiscal note, DCF included the costs for
two categories that in hindsight should be eliminated. The first
was the inclusion of youth subsidy added to the Adoption
Support Program, that should be a program policy change
and any additional funding would be requested through an
enhancement request as part of the state budget cycle at the
appropriate time. The second category that DCF removed
from the estimate are the annual medical costs. Initially the
thought was that an amendment to the Medicaid State Plan
would be needed for these youth to continue to be covered by
the medical card. DCF now believes these youth would
continue to be covered by the medical card without any
change needed to the Medicaid State Plan. Originally, the
total state costs were $714,199 from the State General Fund
for FY 2024, $2.4 million from the State General Fund for FY
2025 and FY 2026.
The assumptions that were removed are:
● 75.0 percent of youth who are expected to
establish SOUL family legal permanenc