domestic violence – Missouri House of Representatives Newsroom

Birth Certificates language will help escapes from domestic violence

Escaping domestic violence in Missouri might have gotten a little easier, under legislation that became law August 28.

*Representative Chris Dinkins (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

One of the greatest obstacles facing victims of domestic violence involves possession of the documents they need to start their lives over. A provision in Senate Bill 28 will provide free copies of birth certificates when those are requested by victims.

The idea came out of the Southeast Missouri Family Violence Council, who brought it to Representative Chris Dinkins (R-Lesterville), and she immediately saw its importance.

“When the SEMO Family Violence Council brought this to my attention, [I could see that This was a real-life issue that people were facing on a daily basis and it was a good thing to get done for the people,” said Dinkins. “We want to do everything we can, everything in our power, to help them move on and get out of these situations.”

Tracy Carroll is the Assistant Director and Case Manager for the Council. As a case manager she has seen, countless times, people trying to get out of abusive situations but struggling to do so because they needed documentation.

“About 90 percent of them didn’t have a birth certificate or a driver’s license because part of the abuser’s M.O. is to keep those important documents from them so that they can’t leave … and every time we needed to get one, of course they don’t have any money – they come to us with very little – so we would either have to take it out of general funds or we would scrounge up in our purses $15 for the birth certificate.”

Often, victims escape from an abusive home in the middle of the night and even perhaps during a violent incident. They leave with little more than the clothes on their back and the backs of their children, only to later realize that they need documentation to do things like get a job or enroll children in school.

“A lot of these women have four and five kids and we have to get birth certificates for them so that they can go to school and different things like that, so it’s not just the mother, it’s all their children we get birth certificates for. That was really important to us, that we could help them in that first step,” said Carroll.

The $15 apiece fee to get a copy of a birth certificate often presents a huge obstacle for someone in a crisis situation. Shelters, then, have typically covered that fee, but Carroll said that adds up quickly and takes away from other things shelters aim to provide.

“I don’t think people realize those kinds of things are not in our grants. We have to come up with that money out of our general revenue or … we have been in here counting [one dollar bills] and stuff trying to get a birth certificate for somebody,” said Carroll. She said in one case, “A lady, she had seven children … and needed to all get enrolled in school. Well at $15 a pop times seven children plus herself, and then to top it off they came in at Christmas … that family, we just shelled out a large chunk of money that could be used for other resources for them, had we not had to purchase all those.”

The Council’s Executive Director, Stephanie Bennett, said after they met with Rep. Dinkins at an event in the capital city and brought up the issue, she recognized its importance and asked them to bring her some legislation.

“We drove home from Jefferson City and literally sat at my kitchen table and Googled how to write a bill, because it’s not something we had ever done.”

Later, the Missouri Coalition for Domestic and Sexual Violence, the membership of which includes the Council and other shelters around the state, picked up the issue and advocated for it. Dinkins said that helped get the proposal the traction it needed.

“Missouri wants to be a helping hand and that’s exactly what we’re doing in this situation. We don’t want to be a stumbling block keeping people from being able to move forward, especially when they’re coming out of these domestic or sexual violence situations,” said Dinkins.

While this could make an immeasurable difference for many victims, Bennett hopes the passage of this language in SB 28 is only the beginning.

“The end goal would be for this to be a federal law, because we often get clients who aren’t even born in the state, so you might pay $25 to Oklahoma for one but then you might pay $110 to New Jersey, so every state’s amount differs.”

Carroll said cost isn’t the only issue regarding certificates from other states. She said different lengths of delays in getting documents mean victims can be forced to sit idle, sometimes for months, before they can begin rebuilding their lives and the lives of their children.

“We did one in California, it took us ten weeks to get the birth certificate.”

The language in SB 28 authorizes a waiver of the fee for a Missouri birth certificate when a victim of domestic violence or abuse requests it, documentation signed by a victim advocate; attorney; or health or mental health care provider who has assisted that person accompanies that request.

Legislature’s action could ease escapes from domestic violence, governor’s action awaited

One of the bills on the desk of Governor Mike Parson (R) would make it easier for people to escape domestic abuse, if it becomes law.

A provision in Senate Bill 28 would waive the fee for a copy of a birth certificate when it is requested by a victim of domestic violence.

It has been proposed for several years by Representative Chris Dinkins (R-Lesterville), who explained to her colleagues that when a person escapes domestic violence, they often have to leave things behind. That often includes vital documents.

“It is very difficult to leave a situation and when you’ve got kids that you’re trying to support and you’re thinking, ‘How am I going to do this now, how am I going to get a job, how am I going to keep moving on and going forward,’ and if they don’t have those documents then they start thinking, ‘I’m not going to be able to get a job, I’m going to have to go back,’” said Dinkins.

“Once they’ve made the decision to leave we [as a state] need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to help them be successful in moving forward.”

Matthew Huffman is the Chief Public Affairs Officer with the Missouri Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence. He said making a decision to leave can be dangerous, frightening, and difficult, and this legislation would help to keep victims from having to go back.

“Whenever a survivor makes the step to leave that can be months, years of safety planning, and we also know that right after someone decides to leave that abusive relationship, that can be one of the most dangerous times for that individual, and so being able to make it out of a dangerous situation and accessing safety, you might not remember to get those vital records that you need. You might not have the ability or the access to get those vital records.”

“Birth certificates are crucial in the individual being able to start their life over again, be able to get out on their own, get away from the person who is abusing them, and often [abusers] hold [victims] captive by keeping their birth certificate and other important documents from them so that they can’t start over again,” said Dinkins. “If you want to get a job, if you want to open up a bank account, you’ve got to have forms of identification, and in order to get a new driver’s license you’re going to have to have a birth certificate. In order to get a new social security card, you’re going to have to have a birth certificate; enrolling kids in school, you’re going to have to have a birth certificate, so all these things are very important.”

She adds that victims escaping abuse often have little if any money and that’s why the fee that is normally charged for certificates is an issue.

“Fifteen dollars may not seem like much to you or me but someone who escapes in the middle of the night … they leave with the clothes on their back and that’s that … so it’s a very important step in saving these peoples’ lives.”

After seeing this proposal fall short in several past legislative sessions, Huffman is hopeful that Governor Parson will sign it into law.

“If, as a state, we can show we really care about domestic violence survivors and we have the ability to provide you a free birth certificate to help you get yourself on a path to self-efficiency and sustainability, I think that that is an incredible thing that the State of Missouri can offer to survivors.”

Dinkins agrees, and adds that just as this proposal was brought to her by a shelter in her district, she encourages advocates to bring her more ideas. She said in her time as a teacher she knew several individuals who were involved in domestic abuse situations, and that makes these issues personal.

“I would be happy to do what I can to move forward any piece of legislation that can help these victims.”

The bill would allow a survivor to get one birth certificate free, one time. It requires a signed statement from an advocate, attorney, or provider of healthcare or mental healthcare.

Governor Parson could sign that bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his action. If it becomes law, this provision would become effective on August 28.

As swatting incidents spike House weighs tougher penalties

False reports of school shootings and other crimes have been rampant for months throughout the United States, and the state House is considering a bill to deal with such crimes.

*Representative Lane Roberts (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

The practice is commonly called “swatting:” making a false report of a crime so that law enforcement – particularly a SWAT team – will respond to an address. It is often used as a revenge tactic, as a way to cause unrest, or in the minds of some it is even seen as a joke.

It isn’t funny to Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), who has a lengthy career that includes time as Joplin’s Police Chief and Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety. He said such reports create needless danger for the public and for law enforcement.

“Frequently people will make a false call for the purpose of harassing someone, discriminating against someone. It affects their reputation, their business, there’s a lot of consequences to some of these false reports and some of it’s pretty darn malicious,” said Roberts. “The difficulty is that the penalties for doing that now are pretty mild compared to the potential for injury that goes with a call like that. It’s just not something that we can put up with.”

For several years he has proposed legislation to address swatting. This week his latest such effort was heard by the House Committee on Public Safety, which he chairs.

He stressed to the committee that the key to House Bill 302 is how it would define the crime. That is, to give a false report to law enforcement, a security officer, a fire department, or other such organization, “with reckless disregard of causing bodily harm to any person as a direct result of an emergency response.”

Roberts explained, “This specifically says the person who makes the false report for the purpose of doing any of the enumerated things … we’re talking about, what’s the intent of the call?”

Under HB 302 those who make false reports that result in a person being killed or seriously hurt could be charged with a class-B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Falsely reporting a felony crime would be a class-E felony (up to four years in prison). Any other false reports would be a class-B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000).

Juveniles making false reports for the first time would be guilty of a status offense. Any further offenses would be class-C misdemeanors and would require a juvenile court appearance or community service and a fine.

The bill would hold any person convicted under its provisions liable for the costs of any emergency response caused by their false report. They could also be sued by any victims. Roberts said that is because swatting can cause, “damage to someone’s business, their reputation, their ability to make a living, their livelihood, so if someone engages in that kind of conduct for the purpose of causing harm to someone’s livelihood, then by all means they should be accountable.”

Jordan Kadosh with the Anti-Defamation League spoke in favor of HB 302. He reiterated that instances of swatting have been spiking, especially after many of the recent shootings at schools throughout the nation. He said after the recent shooting that killed six people at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, Missouri law enforcement was “inundated with false reports.”

“These were later confirmed in the press to be attempts at swatting against schools. The act of swatting turns law enforcement officers against the population that they serve,” said Kadosh.

He said the bill is narrowly crafted to help prosecutors make cases against swatters and at last create real penalties for maliciously making false reports.

The committee has not voted on HB 302. Last year the House passed similar legislation 142-0, but it did advance out of the Senate.

Pronunciations:

Kadosh = kah-DOEsh

Legislative package addresses domestic violence, trafficking

Missouri legislators passed a package of measures intended to protect victims of sexual and domestic violence and trafficking before the 2022 regular session drew to a close on May 13. Senate Bill 775 contained language sponsored by several House members, and now awaits action by Governor Mike Parson (R).

*Representative Hannah Kelly (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

“It’s our big legislative win for this session,” said Jennifer Carter Dochler, who was the legislative liaison for the Missouri Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence during the regular session.

The bill was handled in the House by Representative Hannah Kelly (R-Mountain Grove), who was glad to see it reach the governor’s desk despite issues in the legislature that created challenges for all legislation this year.

“At the end of the day the process that our founding fathers set out caused it to be that we were able to come together and accomplish something good despite our differences and that is a beautiful thing that everybody needs to walk away remembering should always be our highest priority. You’re not going to find a better [issue] to do it on than this.”

Kelly said of particular importance to her, personally, in SB 775 is the language that establishes the “Sexual Assault Survivors Bill of Rights.” This seeks to make sure victims know their rights regarding the gathering of evidence and related medical exams; access to incident reports; and protections from intimidation and harassment by an attacker.

Kelly said someone important in her life is a victim of rape and, “The provisions in this bill, I believe, would’ve brought justice for this person in a swifter manner.”

The Bill of Rights portion is meant to, among other things, give some clarity and guidance to victims, who often find themselves traumatized and with no knowledge of what to do or to whom to turn.

“All [that a victim knows] is a really horrible thing has happened that nobody ever dreams will happen to them,” said Kelly. “The heart and soul of it is protecting victims and providing stronger protections and providing education … and what greater cause to unite behind than educating and empowering victims in these horrible situations to know what their rights are and to know the pathway by which they can appropriately seek justice.”

SB 775 also clarifies definitions in Missouri law regarding “sexual contact” and “sexual conduct.” Representative David Evans (R-West Plains) said he dealt with at least one case, during his 28 years as a judge, in which unclear definitions regarding contact with minor victims hindered prosecution.

“Taking ambiguous law or badly written law and making it clear is important clearly for the victims of crime but also clarifies, which is required in criminal law, exactly what the crime is,” said Evans. “None of us can be convicted of a crime that’s ambiguous. That’s protection under due process … it’s good to have specific law especially when you’re dealing with a very serious felony.”

*Representative David Evans (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

SB 775 would specify that no persons younger than 18 will be prosecuted for prostitution, and if located by law enforcement while engaged in commercial sexual acts, they will be considered a victim of abuse and referred to the Children’s Division and juvenile officers to receive help. It also eliminates the requirement that a person under 18 and charged with prostitution must prove they were coerced to avoid conviction.

These were provisions found in legislation sponsored by Representative Ed Lewis (R-Moberly), who said the laws regarding these individuals needs to be focused on getting them help.

“A lot of times a minor can be in that lifestyle and not even know that they’re being trafficked, not even know that they’re being abused. They think, ‘Well no, I’m doing this of my own free will,’ but they’re not. They’re being abused and used by some adult for their own gain, and we have to get them the help they need to help them to understand that this is not right,” said Lewis. “Instead of looking at these people who have come to rescue them as rescuers they can look at them as the enemy and we have to make sure that they get the help that they need so they understand what their outcome should be and how to get back to what we would call a normal life free of abuse.”

Other related sections deal with prosecuting those who attempted to engage in sexual acts or pornography-related offenses with individuals under 18.

The bill also contains language sponsored by Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin) dealing with orders of protection. It would state that a person with an order of protection against them cannot skip a court date regarding that order and then plead ignorance to knowing it was still in effect. He and Carter Dochler say this defense has often been successful for abusers who would violate an order and then say they didn’t know it was in place because they didn’t attend a hearing.

Roberts has often said that this and other proposals he has filed stem from his time in law enforcement – including as Joplin’s police chief and the director of the Department of Public Safety – and times in his career when he couldn’t help a victim because of how the law was written.

“Sometimes the law doesn’t serve the victim and sometimes, frankly, the process to provide due process to the person that’s accused ultimately re-victimizes the victim, so it’s been very frustrating to me throughout my [law enforcement] career. Now I’m in a position to do something about it.”

Along that same line, Roberts said a provision in SB 775 that is important to him is one that allows victims to testify via video rather than have to appear in court for a domestic violence proceeding.

Roberts says too often, a victim is afraid to proceed with prosecution for fear or retribution by their abuser. This provision addresses that fear; specifically that requiring a victim to appear in court creates an instance in which their abuser will know where and when to find them.

“If you read the newspapers you will frequently see where a domestic violence case was dismissed because the victim didn’t show up to testify. I can’t tell you how many times that’s because they were afraid to show up but I guarantee you it’s a significant part of the number of people who don’t show up, and why.”

With all these issues, legislators have to craft language that protects victims but also allows for due process for those who are accused. Evans believes with SB 775, Missouri gets closer to finding the right balance between those considerations, “and again that’s one thing I really enjoy doing, is balancing the rights of those that are charged but making it absolutely clear to protect the victims of the crimes as well. I think we’re getting there.”

The House vote that sent SB 775 to the governor was 141-0. Carter Dochler said the Coalition is, “very grateful and really excited [that] at a time where there has been so much turbulence on different issues that everybody could really come together and find agreement on items that would make things better for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, or some other related judicial proceedings.”

SB 775 includes several other provisions, including those that would make it a crime for any coach of minors to abuse a minor, whereas currently law speaks only to high school coaches; extends protections against the release of a victim’s personal information to include their personal email address, birth date, health status, or any information from a forensic testing report; and further restricts when the prior sexual conduct of a witness or victim in a sexual offense case may be inquired about in a legal proceeding.

House bill would increase penalties for ‘swatting’

The House has voted to increase the penalties for deliberately reporting someone to law enforcement with the intent or hurting, embarrassing, or intimidating them; a practice commonly referred to as “swatting.”

Under House Bill 1704 a person would be guilty of making a false report if they intentionally make, or causes to be made to any enforcement organization, a false report that could cause bodily harm as a result of the emergency response.

“The bill hinges on the statement that it is with reckless disregard of causing bodily harm to any person as a direct result of an emergency response,” said bill sponsor Lane Roberts (R-Joplin). “It’s an effort to keep people from weaponizing the public safety system to harm other people; sometimes physically, sometimes by reputation or intimidation.”

“This also deals with the use of the system to humiliate, embarrass, or have people forcibly removed from premises, and this is often aimed at minorities, aimed at religious differences, sexual orientation … recent news has been replete with that kind of conduct,” said Roberts. “This bill prohibits that kind of use of public safety to harm others, to harm their reputation, to harm them physically, or otherwise damage an individual.”

Those who make false reports that result in a person being killed or seriously hurt could be charged with a class-B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Otherwise, false reports of a felony crime would be a class-C felony (up to 7 years in prison) and false reports of a misdemeanor would be a class-B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000).

Roberts and other legislators have discussed in recent years how incidents of “swatting” seem to have increased, and in some cases those have resulted in deaths and serious injuries. Roberts’ legislation is the latest attempt to address that.

“Somebody will call in a false report that generates a response from a police agency, sometimes a SWAT team, which by its very nature, puts people at risk of injury or death, both the police officer and folks inside.”

His proposal was sent to the Senate with unanimous bipartisan support, 142-0. Democrats contributed to the language of HB 1704, and Representative Ashley Bland Manlove (D-Kansas City) spoke in support of it. She said she remembers a recent “swatting” incident that happened just across the state line from her district, in Kansas.

“Somebody he was on [a] video game with in California was apparently mad that they had lost the game and used an app to deploy SWAT to the man in Overland Park’s house saying, ‘He’s got somebody in the house and they’ve got hostages,’ so SWAT comes in hot immediately. Unfortunately the young man was a black man,” said Bland Manlove. “I’ve also heard of this being used, as [Representative Roberts] said, in domestic disputes. Somebody’s mad that they don’t have the kids or they have to pay child support so then they constantly use the police, filing false reports against the other partner.”

The bill was also the product of bipartisan cooperation, with the inclusion of changes authored by Representative Robert Sauls (D-Kansas City).

In addition to possible incarceration and fines, violations of the language of HB 1704 could result in civil penalties.

“Any person who makes a false report in violation of this section for the purpose of infringing on another person’s rights under the Missouri or the United States Constitution; unlawfully discriminating against another person; causing another person to be expelled from a place in which such person is lawfully located; damaging another person’s reputation or standing within the community, financial, economic, consumer or business partner interests may be required to pay punitive damages to the victim, so it addresses some of the more malicious forms of use of swatting,” said Roberts.

HB 1704 was sent to the Senate with two full weeks remaining in the legislative session.

House approves increased protections for domestic violence victims

The House has voted to make several changes in state law meant to make victims of domestic violence safer. It’s sponsored by a man who, during his career in law enforcement, was often frustrated by how laws limited what he could do to help victims.

“This bill seeks to plug some of the gaps in our laws that allow abusers to circumvent the system and continue to use the system actually to further abuse their victims,” said Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin).

A key provision of Roberts’ House Bill 1699 would specify that a defendant in an abuse case will be considered to have been notified of an order of protection if they are notified in any reasonable way. In effect, this would make clear that orders of protection remain place until otherwise ordered by a court.

“What happens today is that when somebody files for an ex parte order and then a hearing is scheduled the temporary order stays in effect until the hearing. If the abuser chooses not to show up in court and later pleads ignorance, he didn’t know what went on in court, there have been some successful defenses to violating the order because of this so-called ignorance. What this bill does is say that when you get served that temporary, those provisions are going to remain in effect and they don’t expire simply because the hearing is being held. Those protections go on and the individual can’t plead ignorance.”

Jennifer Carter Dochler with the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said this was the provision that was the most exciting.

“Although all of them are going to have an important impact … that has been such a gap and has created so many safety issues for survivors,” said Carter Dochler.

Another portion would allow victims in domestic violence cases to testify via video conference. Roberts says often, domestic cases are dismissed because victims refuse to testify.

“It’s not because the victim doesn’t want to be there. The truth of the matter is in many cases the victim is simply afraid to be in the same room. The victim does not want the abuser to know where they’re going to be at a particular time, and so it’s important that we give this person some kind of security if we possibly can,” said Roberts.

Carter Dochler said victims who testify in court now often take great measures to plan for their own safety during that appearance.

“When I did court advocacy … we would have the bailiff walk us out and things like that, so just the ability to be able to teleconference in for getting your order of protection is also something that will be incredibly helpful for the safety of the victim, and may also increase the likelihood of somebody feeling comfortable continuing to pursue an order of protection,” said Carter Dochler.

She said another hurdle for victims testifying for an order of protection, sometimes, is finding childcare, and video conferencing could negate that issue.

HB 1699 would also specify that courts cannot make a victim or their family reveal in court the victim’s current address or workplace unless necessary.

“This is something that you’d think would be common sense,” said Roberts.

Earlier versions of the legislation had caused concern for some lawmakers, specifically that the video testimony provision would violate the constitutional right of accused abusers to face their accusers in court. Roberts worked with other legislators to deal with issues in the bill leading to the version the House passed.

*Representative Ian Mackey (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

“I was a little hesitant at first, I’ll admit. I’m somebody who likes to protect the rights of those who wish to confront their accusers in court,” said Representative Ian Mackey (D), who is an attorney in St. Louis. “Through conversations with [Roberts] and other folks involved in this issue I think the needle was threaded just as finely and carefully as it could be. I think this protect victims. It also protects the accused. It’s a great product.”

“The bill handler made some changes and I just think it made a much better bill. It was a good bill to begin with but it needed some changes. He did that,” said Robert Sauls, a Kansas City Democrat who is a former Jackson County Prosecutor and public defender.

Sauls told Roberts, “I appreciate your willingness to listen and the changes you made.”

HB 1699 would also specify that when a defendant is ordered to pay the victim’s attorney fees, that order covers the entire proceeding; and that a person convicted of domestic assault who is ordered to attend a batterer-intervention program will be responsible for paying for that program.

Carter Dochler said the legislation would make a number of small changes in Missouri law each of which would make a big difference in the lives of victims.

“I really appreciate Representative Roberts’ commitment to finding gaps and figuring out what he can do to close them,” said Carter Dochler.

The House voted 147-0 to send the proposal to the Senate.

Lawmaker to continue focus on domestic violence issues

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 (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.

“What you’re looking at is … my efforts to remedy things that I’ve seen go wrong, things that I believe have been wrong, and to do it in a way that doesn’t undermine the intent of a fair and due process,” said Roberts.

“Over the years I found myself dealing with a number of different circumstances wherein I truly thought the right thing to do in protecting the victim, frankly, was not provided for in law. So I wound up having to explain to victims why I couldn’t do the things that the victim and I both knew were in their best interest. I watched abusers and, in some cases, their representatives twist, manipulate, take advantage of loopholes, doing things that I think the law provided for but not by intent,” said Roberts. “It was a result of trying to ensure that we treated both sides of the discussion fairly. Someone who’s been accused of a crime is innocent until they’re proven guilty, so we do need to make that acknowledgement. We do need to make sure that they receive due process. But, if the end result is the other side of that equation is abused or treated unfairly, that doesn’t make any sense. There’s no balance there.”

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.

“Individuals who are abusive are very good at finding any loophole in the protections that we’ve helped establish. This bill is absolutely trying to address multiple loopholes that have been identified that prevent the court from doing their best at protecting victims.”

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.

“What I’m trying to do is remove the ambiguity. You know you’ve been charged. You’ve been made aware of the hearing. I think the presumption needs to be the person did, in fact, get notified, not accept the presumption that they didn’t,” said Roberts.

Carter Dochler said by the time an order of protection hearing is held, a victim has, “already asked the court for safety, and so let’s try to reduce a burden that we have continued to hear, over the years, creates safety issues.”

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.

“Their abusive partner is going to know exactly when they’re going to be there, what time. Although some courts try to put safety precautions in place … there’s still a safety risk for someone parking, walking into the courthouse, having to wait, how they’re going to leave,” said Carter Dochler.

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.

“It’s difficult to describe, for those of us who’ve never experienced it, what it must be like to be the victim of repeated, and in some cases, vile abuse, to have to sit in the same room with [the person responsible] and have their lawyer pick you apart or have them staring at you with the intent of intimidating you,” said Roberts. “How many people don’t show up to court because they don’t want to experience that? How much fear does that create in the mind of somebody who maybe had it in mind that they were going to go forward and then it comes down to the reality of facing somebody in the same room?”

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.

“In many cases abusers and wrongdoers will continue to do things that are abusive and wrong for the purpose of advancing their interests in court, and that includes intimidating, threatening, or physically harming witnesses and victims,” said Roberts. “What we’re really talking about here is giving them some level of comfort that people won’t know where to find them if they step up and do the right thing.”

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.

“This is another instance where grammar does matter,” said Carter Dochler. “The intention has always been that somebody could request the respondent to cover reasonable court fees … we’re taking this opportunity to clarify what the intention was.”

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.

“Many people understand that domestic violence is a real part of everyday life for some people, and hopefully folks have begun to realize that those of us who’ve never been in those situations really cannot understand how horrible it is to live in constant fear, and in the home that’s supposed to be your haven and your safe place,” said Roberts. “I’ve just seen it for the better part of five decades and the things that we’re talking about here are those kind of individual elements that I feel I can do to maybe remedy some of that.”

Carter Dochler said the Coalition is grateful for Roberts’ focus on these issues.

“Representative Roberts is doing an amazing job listening directly from constituents in his community about the barriers they’re experiencing. He’s also taking his prior law enforcement career and barriers he experienced and he’s trying to address those things, and he’s to be commended,” said Carter Dochler.

Roberts plans to file this legislation on or after December 1, when prefiling of bills for the 2022 session begins.

House votes to offer lifetime orders of protection to domestic abuse victims

The House wants victims of domestic abuse to be able to get lifetime orders of protection against their abusers. That would be possible under a bill sent to the Senate this week.

Orders of protection are generally only effective for one year. House Bill 744 would allow a judge, after a review of the case, to issue one for the lifetime of the abuser.

It is sponsored by former Department of Public Safety Director and former Joplin Police Chief, Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin).

“I spent a great deal of my life having to look women in the eye and explain to them why I could not do what I knew needed to be done to help them, and I had to leave them living in fear and could not put a stop to it. Finally I find myself in a position to actually do something about it,” said Roberts. “If I never do anything more in this body than pass this particular bill I will still have made a contribution that I’ll take home and feel good about.”

Under the bill a judge considering whether an order should last for a lifetime would consider the evidence of the case; the history of abuse, stalking, and threatening; an abuser’s criminal record; previous orders of protection; and whether the respondent has violated probation or parole, or previous orders of protection.

Lane said the women who bravely came to testify on his bill shared stories of horrific abuse that had continued for years.

“26-week pregnant women being beaten with a shovel, women who were sexually abused in a hospital while they were medicated, ex-fiancées being shot and paralyzed, women beaten so badly that they have to have facial reconstruction,” said Roberts.

“The victims of this find themselves going to court every single year when it goes on and on. In one case one of these victims has been to court 68 times in nine years,” said Roberts.

Kansas City representative Mark Ellebracht (D) is an attorney who has counseled women who are experiencing abuse. He said it is more than frustrating to know that they must go back to court every year to deal with the case.

Representative Mark Ellebracht (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“Often when they go back to court, their abuser [can represent himself], which means he gets to cross-examine her and ask her very sensitive, very personal questions and harass her again in front of a court because of the way the system works. This bill is designed to fix that,” said Ellebracht. “It’s a very, very good bill.”

The bill would also allow courts to include pets in dealing with domestic abuse. This would include awarding possession of a pet and considering abuse or threatened abuse of a pet in making decisions in the case. Legislators said often abusers threaten or harm a pet in an effort to control or terrorize a victim.

The House voted 151-2 to send that legislation to the Senate.

Earlier stories:

Lifetime order of protection would be possible under House proposal

Representative, former police chief, proposes tighter stalking laws

Pronouncers:

Ellebracht = EL-eh-brockt

Domestic abusers could not legally have guns under House proposal

Those under a full order of protection or convicted of a crime of domestic violence would no longer be able to have or buy guns under a proposal now in the Missouri House. Supporters say the bill would mirror Missouri law to federal law and fix a gap unintentionally created by 2016 legislation.

Representative Ron Hicks (Photo: Mike Lear, Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 473 would require a court, when issuing an order of protection, to order that the subject of that order not be able to have firearms. Law enforcement would be notified, to make sure the order is followed. Those convicted of 2^nd degree stalking and 4^th degree assault would also not be able to possess a firearm.

“This bill … is not about taking the 2^nd Amendment rights away from you, to bear arms. It’s about protecting the women and children and even men in our state. This is an issue I believe all of us can agree on,” said bill sponsor Ron Hicks (R-St. Charles).

House Bill 473 would address an issue with Missouri state law that was exacerbated with the passage of Senate Bill 656 in 2016.

“This is something that [the House] has tried to tackle for years. In 2016 I sat in this body when a promise was made by our former speaker … to have this put back in. It was stricken out of a bill and all I want to do is put it back in,” said Hicks.

Judy Kile has testified in past years on previous versions of this language. For six years she has been the Executive Director of COPE, a shelter in Lebanon. She told the House Committee on General Laws her twin sister was murdered by her abusive husband.

She said at her sister’s funeral many people told her they wished there was something they could do. She told lawmakers, “I’m gonna put that on you all. There’s something you can do. You can get the guns away during that time that’s so volatile.”

Kile said that in her work at the shelter she has seen the patterns to domestic violence. She said for a variety of reasons, a victim often goes back to an abuser a number of times even after an order of protection or conviction has been secured.

“If I took a poll I would say that 90-percent of the people – it’s women, mostly, in our shelter – that come into our shelter have had a gun held to their head in their home, and sometimes, a gun held to their children’s head.”

The Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence has been pushing for passage of this change for years. Public Policy Director Jennifer Carter Dochler said even before SB 656 in 2016, Missouri had not mirrored the federal Violence Against Women Act. It gave direction to judges and law enforcement about removing guns from the hands of abusers.

What lawmakers unintentionally struck in 2016 had denied those under orders of protection or convicted of domestic assault when they applied for concealed carry permits. Under the 2016 law those permits are no longer needed.

“We’re very appreciative of Representative Hicks’ leadership to close a loophole in Missouri’s law and to protect victims of domestic violence,” said Carter Dochler.

Hicks said following the hearing he spoke to a representative of the NRA and he believes that organization will issue a letter of support for the bill.

The committee has not voted on the legislation.

Lifetime order of protection would be possible under House proposal

Victims of domestic abuse would be able to get lifetime orders of protection from abusers under a bill offered in the Missouri House.

Missouri law allows for orders of protection that last for one year. That means victims who want continued protection must go back to court annually to seek extensions. This forces them to repeatedly face their abuser and relive what they went through. Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), former chief of the Joplin Police and director of the Department of Public Safety, says that’s wrong.

Lisa Saylor told House members this represents the paperwork she has accumulated since 2011, in dealing with the court system while working to protect herself from an abuser.

“There are people who deal with abusive friends, ex-friends, ex-boyfriends, family members, and they never get respite,” said Roberts. “Try to envision what it would be like to have to deal with something like this for two or three years and every year you’ve got to go back and get a protection order, repeatedly. Then it dries up for a couple of years. The protection order expires, the individual comes back, takes up where they left off, the police are called. You get an officer who’s never heard of this before or you go in front of a judge who’s never seen it before, and the whole nightmare starts over.”

“I can tell you from personal experience that when you have to look a woman in the eye and explain to her why the law won’t protect her, it is very difficult, and they shouldn’t have to live that way,” said Roberts. “I think this is frankly a fairly significant step to correct what I think should be common sense.”

Janice Thompson Gehrke is a survivor and now works with and for victims. She told the House Committee on Judiciary people often ask her why they shake when they have to go to court, including the repeated appearances to renew an order of protection.

“What’s happening is your body’s natural response of an adrenaline dump telling you, you are in danger. You’re in danger because you’re putting yourself in the same place as a person that is a real danger to you. In spite of every instinct in your body telling you to run, here you are doing what you have been told are the necessary steps to keep legal protections for yourself in place,” said Thompson Gehrke.

Lisa Saylor told the committee that since 2011 she has spent more than $45,000 in court costs, in part from having to repeatedly renew orders of protection. If she doesn’t retain an attorney she runs the risk that her abuser could personally cross-examine her in a courtroom.

“I was exhausted from my fight mentally, physically, emotionally, financially, just trying to stay safe from my abuser. How much could one system put a victim through and expect them to survive this journey?” asked Saylor.

The legislation, House Bill 744, would allow an order of protection to be in place through the life of the abuser. The committee has not voted on it.

Pronunciations:

Gehrke = (GER-kee)