Kansas House Bill HB2326

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/25
• Refer: 2/7/25

Caption

Adding consideration of whether the offender has physical custody of such offender's minor child or is a legal guardian or custodian with physical custody of a minor child to the factors considered for diversions and dispositional departures.

Summary

HB 2326 would amend Kansas sentencing and diversion statutes to require courts and prosecutors to consider whether a defendant has physical custody of a minor child, or is a legal guardian or custodian with physical custody of a minor child, when deciding whether to grant a dispositional departure or a diversion agreement. In the sentencing context, the bill adds this family-custody circumstance to the list of nonexclusive mitigating factors a judge may weigh when determining whether substantial and compelling reasons exist to depart from the presumptive sentence. In the diversion context, it adds the same circumstance to the factors a county or district attorney must consider when deciding whether diversion is in the interests of justice and beneficial to the defendant and the community. The bill also retains and reorganizes existing aggravating and mitigating factors in the sentencing statute, including factors related to victim vulnerability, brutality, bias motivation, fiduciary relationships, use of minors in crime, extreme sexual violence, incarceration during the offense, and leadership in group criminal conduct. It preserves existing diversion limitations for certain serious offenses, including DUI recidivists, some commercial driver violations, higher-level felonies, and repeated domestic violence diversions. The measure would amend K.S.A. 21-6815 and 22-2908 and repeal the current versions of those statutes. The practical impact of HB 2326 would be to make parental or custodial responsibility a formal consideration in both sentencing departures and diversion decisions, potentially increasing the likelihood of non-prison alternatives or leniency for eligible defendants who are caring for minor children. It would not mandate diversion or departure, but it would require decision-makers to account for the presence of dependent children or custodial duties as part of the individualized assessment. The bill would affect judges, prosecutors, defendants, and families involved in criminal cases, particularly where incarceration or a conviction could disrupt child custody arrangements. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a criminal-justice reform and family-stability proposal, likely intended to reduce collateral consequences for caregivers of minor children. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context means the level of support or resistance cannot be determined from the available record. The main point of potential contention is whether family-custody status should influence sentencing and diversion decisions, and how much weight it should receive relative to offense severity, public safety, and victim interests. Supporters would likely emphasize child welfare, family preservation, and proportionality, while critics might argue that the factor could create inconsistent outcomes or soften consequences for defendants in serious cases. Another possible issue is how prosecutors and judges would verify custody status and apply the new factor consistently across cases.

Impact

HB 2326 would amend Kansas criminal sentencing and diversion law by adding a new mitigating consideration tied to a defendant's physical custody of a minor child or legal guardianship/custodianship of a minor child. It would affect K.S.A. 21-6815, governing dispositional departures from presumptive sentences under the sentencing guidelines, and K.S.A. 22-2908, governing prosecutorial diversion decisions. The bill would not require a departure or diversion, but it would require courts and prosecutors to consider this family-custody factor alongside existing statutory factors.

Sentiment

No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so the record does not show an explicit legislative sentiment. From the bill's caption and structure, the measure appears to be a reform-oriented proposal aimed at allowing criminal-justice decision-makers to account for caregiving responsibilities and the impact of incarceration on minor children. The available context suggests a policy rationale centered on family stability and individualized sentencing rather than punishment expansion.

Contention

The likely controversy is whether custody of a minor child should be treated as a mitigating factor in sentencing and diversion, and how much discretion it should create for judges and prosecutors. Supporters would likely argue that caregivers should not be separated from children unnecessarily and that family responsibilities are relevant to proportionality and rehabilitation. Opponents may worry that the factor could reduce accountability, produce uneven application, or be given weight in cases involving serious offenses, victims, or public safety concerns. Practical questions may also arise about proof of custody, the timing of custody status, and whether the new factor could be invoked too broadly.