The state House has voted unanimously to tell judges they cannot delay finalization of a divorce based on one party in the marriage being pregnant. The vote came after one bill sponsor shared her own experience with domestic violence, and how she found herself pregnant but unable to divorce her abuser.
Representatives Cecelie Williams (left) and Raychel Proudie (right) speak in a side gallery in the House Chamber after the House voted unanimously to advance their proposal meant to clear the way for pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Missouri Law allows filing for divorce during a pregnancy, but judges typically wait to finalize a divorce until after that party gives birth.
The passage came after one of the proposal’s sponsors shared her own story of having been in an abusive marriage, and learning that she could not divorce her husband while pregnant.
The legislation was first offered during the 2023 legislative session by Representative Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City), who praised Williams for her bravery in sharing her personal story and getting this legislation so far, so early in session.
Legislators, visitors, and staff listened in silence as Rep. Cecelie Williams spoke about her own story of surviving domestic violence, in asking them to approve her bill to allow pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Aune said the proposal had been brought to her by domestic violence advocates, and she viewed it with such issues in mind. Once she filed it, however, she was truck by how many men contacted her to thank her.
After House voted to send the bill to the Senate, Williams reflected on how hard it has been to speak publicly about what she went through, an experience that included years of physical and verbal abuse, often in front of her young children, before her abuser took his own life just days before their divorce would have become final.
The vote to send House Bills 243 (Williams) and 280 (Proudie) to the Senate was 155-0. It now goes to the Senate, in which two versions of the same language have been filed.
Some people in Missouri’s prisons are there after a jury considered the lyrics they wrote or listened to when weighing their guilt. One House member thinks courts should have to consider whether lyrics or other artistic expressions are relevant to a case before they are allowed in a trial.
Representative Phil Christofanelli (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
House Bill 353 would lay out when such expressions could be introduced to a jury and require that a hearing be conducted to see whether they meet that criteria.
Christofanelli said many judges are already doing what his bill would require because they recognize that things like lyrics are often used to prejudice a jury.
Under HB 353 before song lyrics, literature, visuals, or any other form of art could go before a jury as evidence against a defendant prosecutors would first have to convince a judge that it was relevant to the crime.
Supporters say in more than 500 cases in the U.S. have lyrics played a part in criminal trials.
Christofanelli said one of the entities he has worked with in deciding to file HB 353 is Warner Music, which owns labels including Elektra Records, Reprise Records, Warner Records, Parlophone Records, and Atlantic Records.
A lawmaker with decades of experience in law enforcement plans to file more legislation meant to help victims of domestic violence in ways he wished he could have during his career.
Representative Lane Roberts (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin) said in his career, including as Joplin’s Police Chief, he was often frustrated at seeing how abusers used the court system to continue to intimidate and persecute victims.
Jennifer Carter Dochler with the Missouri Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence says the issues the bill would address are ones seen time and time again in cases throughout Missouri.
Roberts proposes specifying that when a person receives notice from a court that a hearing will be held on an order of protection against them, that serves as notification of any orders the court issues on the date of that hearing. He said this is because often a person who is the subject of an order of protection will violate it, then say in their defense that they didn’t attend the hearing and therefore didn’t know the order had been put in place. He said this amounts to pleading ignorance, and case law has supported this defense.
Another provision would allow victims to testify in court via video conferencing. Carter Dochler said in addition to victims having to make time to go to court over and over, each time having to incur costs for things like travel and childcare, there are many safety concerns for them when testifying in court. Allowing them to provide testimony over video would be a simple fix.
Roberts called the video conferencing language one of the pieces of the bill he’s the most committed to, because he’s seen that victims can often be reluctant to testify.
The bill would also specify that victims and their witnesses don’t have to reveal home or workplace addresses when testifying in court, unless the court deems it necessary.
A provision the Coalition specifically wanted would clarify that a court can order payment of attorney fees incurred by a victim before, throughout, and after a proceeding. Carter Dochler said because the current statute includes the word, “or,” an attorney successfully argued in one case that the abuser wouldn’t have to cover fees for all of those time periods.
Roberts said based on the response he’s gotten from advocates, he already plans to change some of the language he’s prepared. In particular, he expects to amend a provision that would bar prosecutors from offering plea bargains to defendants facing certain levels of domestic violence charges.
“Maybe we overshot on that,” said Roberts.
Other pieces of this bill would require anyone convicted of domestic violence to pay $1,000 to a shelter in the same city or county as the victim; and require that when they are ordered to take a class on domestic violence, they must pay for it.
In the 2021 session Roberts proposed other domestic violence statute changes that became law in June. These allowed for orders of protection to be extended for up to a lifetime; covered pets under orders of protection; and expanded the definition of “stalking” to include the use of technology such as GPS and social media, or the use of third parties.
Roberts said those pieces of legislation drew something of a “fan following” in Missouri, and for good reason.
Every circuit court in the State of Missouri would have to have at least one veterans treatment court in its jurisdiction under a bill approved by the Missouri House.
Representative Dave Griffith (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Treatment courts utilize an intensive program of court supervision, drug or alcohol testing, and rehabilitation to help defendants overcome substance abuse, mental, emotional, or behavioral issues and keep them from re-offending.
Veterans treatment courts specifically focus on those who have served or currently serve in the military. Many of their needs, including drug testing, utilize the Veterans Administration’s services.
Lawmakers said there is one circuit in the state that does not have a treatment court program.
House Bill 547 would require every circuit court in the state to establish a treatment court division. For courts in which resources are not available for a veterans court, it would allow defendants who are veterans to have their cases transferred to any court in the circuit.
The bill would specify that veterans who had been in combat would be given preference by courts in determining whether to have their cases handled by a veterans court. That provision was offered by Pleasant Hill Republican Mike Haffner, a retired Naval Officer and decorated combat veteran.
Representative Mike Haffner (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Some lawmakers expressed concerns about having courts prioritize combat veterans ahead of non-combat veterans, but Haffner maintains that no one who could benefit from veterans courts will be turned away.
The Missouri legislature moved quickly to pass two bills that were the subject of a special session called by Governor Mike Parson (R).
Representative Kevin Austin (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Parson called lawmakers back into session to reexamine issues covered in two bills he vetoed. One of those would establish statewide standards for treatment courts, such as drug and veteran courts; the other would allow high school computer science courses to count toward graduation requirements for math, science, or practical arts credits. The House voted on Wednesday to send those bills to the Senate, and today the Senate approved those bills without making any changes to them. That means they go to Parson for his consideration.
Representative Kevin Austin (R-Springfield) sponsored House Bill 2, which deals with treatment courts. Such courts in Missouri provide a court-supervised, comprehensive treatment program as an alternative to jail time. Lawmakers and prosecutors agree the program is not an easy out for a defendant.
Over the years courts have been established in numerous districts in the state but without universal guidelines for how to operate. HB 2 seeks to provide those.
Austin said one of his favorite parts of the bill is a transfer clause, which will allow defendants who are candidates for treatment courts but are in a circuit that doesn’t have them, to be transferred to a circuit which does have them.
House Bill 3 would let computer science courses count toward math, science, or practical arts credits needed for graduation. Under the bill students could begin in middle school to be prepared for the opportunities they could have in the job market. Its sponsor, Holts Summit Republican Travis Fitzwater, has been working on STEM legislation for years.
Representatives Jeanie Lauer and Travis Fitzwater (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Representative Jeanie Lauer (R-Blue Springs) chaired the House Committee on Workforce Development and worked with Representative Fitzwater on the computer science portion of HB 3. She said it could help move Missouri forward in workforce development.
Parson announced on August 30 his call for the special session and legislators worked quickly to pass new versions of these bills that addressed the concerns he cited with his vetoes, while spending as little time as possible on the special session. The session’s costs were lessened because it coincided with the constitutionally-mandated veto session.