House panel asked to stem ‘medical kidnappings’ by the state

      A House committee has been presented with stories of a parent’s nightmare:  children being taken by the state based on false suspicions of parental abuse.  Legislators are being asked to address the issue, but finding a balance is difficult when the safety of children is at stake.

Representatives Jamie Gragg and Holly Jones (Photo: Mike Lear, Missouri House Communications)

      The stories shared some similarities.  Parents take a child to a doctor for care for a broken bone.  A medical professional suspects the parent of abuse and contacts the state.  The state takes the child and its siblings from the parents. 

      Months or more go by.  Eventually, a medical diagnosis reveals an explanation for the broken bones that doesn’t involve abuse.  After many frustrating circumstances, much heartache, and the passage of a lot of time, parents and children are reunited, but there are no apologies and much, much damage has been done.

      “The bigger picture, again, is:  we don’t have any rights at all, as soon as anybody says, ‘This is abuse,’” Rebecca Wanosik told the House Committee on Children and Families

      Wanosik was one of those who shared her ordeal with the Committee, as was Tessa Gorzik.

      Gorzik said, “It’s not a one-time thing and you’re done, whether you are convicted of it or not, or accused of it or not.  It’s ‘you’re guilty’ from day one and you have to fight your whole entire life to get those allegations overturned when there should have never been allegations from the get-go if they had done their job appropriately from the get-go.”

     This is what Representatives Holly Jones (R-Eureka) and Jamie Gragg (R-Ozark) are trying to address with House Bills 2690 and 2691.  They are proposing that when a child is placed into 24-hour protective custody due to suspicion of child abuse, custody cannot be extended if a parent or other authorized guardian presents proof that contradicts the allegation of abuse. 

      Jones said it would allow a parent to present a second opinion.

      “There are children that have never been diagnosed [with diseases that can cause injuries that resemble abuse], so there’s no proof to be had, as of yet.  That’s the spirit of the bill, is to be able to offer parents an option when some of these medical conditions could be happening and they’re being accused of child abuse when no such abuse is occurring.”

      Wanosik said such provisions would have saved her a great deal of pain. 

      She said five of her children were taken from her in 2015 when the youngest, then nine weeks old, was found during a doctor visit to have three rib fractures and an arm fracture.  She said her family was denied second opinions and denied access to her child’s medical records. 

      While her children were in state custody, the infant developed more fractures.  Rather than see this as a possible sign that the parents weren’t responsible, the state said the parents could have caused these new fractures during visits, despite those visits being supervised.

      Eventually, a medical diagnosis revealed another explanation for the injuries, but the allegations did not go away.

      “They ruled by a preponderance of evidence that my baby was clearly a victim of child abuse and neglect but they couldn’t pin a perpetrator, and then they gave me my children back,” said Wanosik.  “It’s very common, actually, because you’re not held to the same standard [of] the criminal court and there was never enough evidence for us to be criminally charged,” so they just kept running us through the family court system.”

      Now, Wanosik is the Treasurer for a group called Fractured Families, a group that advocates for situations like hers.  

      “I wholeheartedly believe that [HBs] 2690 and 2691 are going to open up the gateway to at least provide protection for families in the fact that we [could, if it passed,] access the child, the [medical] records.”

      The Committee’s members responded favorably to the proposals but expressed concern that the language needs to be refined. 

      Ferguson Representative Raychel Proudie (D) said it’s unclear to whom any kind of proof of a medical condition would need to be presented.

      “You’re at my house, I’m about to go to jail, you’re about to take my kids, I have the proof, who do I show?  Do I show the police?  The nurse?  It’s the weekend.  It’s a Saturday.  Court’s closed.  My kid has been in your possession now for over 24 hours and I don’t know to whom I am showing this proof.  How do we remedy that?”

      The Missouri Network Against Child Abuse (formerly Missouri KidsFirst), an entity respected by many lawmakers when considering child abuse legislation, spoke in opposition to the bills.  Its Executive Director, Jessica Seitz, said the bills focus on one piece of an abuse allegation.

      “In the overall investigation of an allegation of abuse, the medical opinion is not the arbiter, the decider of the outcome.  It is one part of the investigation.”  

      Further, Seitz said the “proof” the bill centers on is not defined, calling the language, “vague and problematic, and being unspecified puts us at risk of a child being left in an unsafe situation.”

      Seitz challenged the premise of the bill, that there is a need for a state law to allow parents to get a second opinion when they are being investigated for child abuse.

      “A second opinion is always welcome in the court process, but just introducing a second opinion as a part of the overall investigation … should not short circuit the process and mandate the outcome, introducing one factor in the overall investigation.  We risk putting our kids in danger.”

      However, Seitz emphasized respect for the efforts of Jones and Gragg, saying she wants to work with them to improve the system.

      Jones said she remains adamant that something must change, because the damage done to children and their families when the state takes children away is long-lasting and runs deep.

      “That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to move forward with this bill so quickly, is that our foster care system is not only so overrun and it’s such a huge part of the children and families organization throughout the state, this is really going to cut back on the mental health issues and the trauma to families,” Jones said.

      Committee member Ed Lewis (R-Moberly) acknowledged Seitz’s concerns but told her, “We are going to move forward with this bill, if I have anything to say about it, but you need to be a part of the picture.  Your organization needs to be a part of the picture because if you’re not, it’s not going to be the balanced, thread-the-needle approach that has to happen so that we both protect those children who are actually being abused and … I would say [just] as important, [is] protecting those families and those parents and those children who aren’t being abused but get caught up in the system.”

      Gragg echoed Lewis’ sentiment, telling the committee he knew addressing this issue would be challenging.

      “There’s a very fine line that we’re trying to close the gap on, from protecting the kids that need protecting … and also not taking advantage, or overstepping, with those [cases of children with parents] that are falsely accused of something.  We’re trying to narrow that gap, and the problem with that narrow line, that fine line, is it ain’t straight.  That is for sure.”   

Proposal would add 17 year-olds to legal definition of ‘missing child’

      The definition of a “missing child” in Missouri law would include 17 year-olds under a proposal heard by a House committee this week.

Representative Bishop Davidson (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Republic representative Bishop Davidson (R) said he heard from a constituent about a 17 year-old who ran away from home and police could not act to retrieve her.  He said her family felt she was in an unsafe and abusive situation, and noted that they still have responsibility for her care until she turns 18.

      “It’s really a question about at what point are you considered a child and at what point are you considered an adult.  I think if we want to allow for a 9 year-old or a 10 year-old or an 11 year-old, at some point in time that line has to be drawn.  In all of the law we draw that line at 18.  Here we draw it, curiously, at 17,” said Davidson.  “In terms of whether or not a child is considered a child or an adult, I think that there should be consistency across the law.”

      Davidson presented the proposal to the House Committee on Children and Families, the members of which raised some concerns. 

      “If you’re 17 and living in a bad environment at your home … if you leave this would actually give law enforcement people the authority to retrieve you and force you to go back home?” asked Republican Randy Pietzman (Troy)“I’m just thinking of scenarios growing up, people I know that have left home at 16.  They dropped out of school, they left home because it was a bad environment, and 90 percent of those people are pretty well off and doing very well, and I’m just thinking if they’d have been forced to stay there for another year they might not be doing as well as they are.”

      Davidson said it would, but noted there are other systems in place to help a young person in such a situation.

      “Now would I want an officer or someone close to the family, I mean if the child is running away at 17 could that be a pause for concern?  Could that stir up some questions that go, ‘Hey, did they run away for any particular reason that maybe we should look into?’  Sure, that’s a whole other conversation,” said Davidson, who added that he appreciated Pietzman’s reservation. 

      Several committee members thanked Davidson for opening the discussion.  Shrewsbury Democrat Sarah Unsicker recently read about a 17 year-old who was dropped from the foster care system but was not emancipated, so among other things she could not enter into a contract such as a lease to find housing.   

      “The report I got from the government says law enforcement refused to file a missing persons report or issue a pickup order due to the child’s age … so I think it’s really important that law enforcement know that they need to look for missing kids when they’re 17 years old,” said Unsicker. 

      Representative Marlene Terry (D-St. Louis) asked Davidson about expanding his bill to specify that law enforcement search for such individuals, and what must be done in that search.

Representative Marlene Terry asks Rep. Bishop Davidson about his bill, as Representatives Hannah Kelly (light blazer) and Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Chair of the House Committee on Children and Families, listen. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “What I’m finding is that there are not procedures in place that make it manadatory to actually search for individuals that are missing.  A lot of times they’ll put up pictures and it’s a blank picture and not a photo.  All those things are important.  Even with the age, makes a difference, there’s other things that make a difference that might be helpful to make the search more valuable,” said Terry.

      “I come to this with a very open mind,” Davidson told Terry.  “This is not an issue that I have been most closely involved in and so I’m excited to see where the conversations go.”

      Mountain Grove Republican Hannah Kelly said in her experience, much frustration for caseworkers comes from directives being handed down without understanding of what would be necessary for them to be met. 

      “I would just ask to be able to have a continuing part in that conversation with you about what the ultimate structure looks like … what does it take to go do this,” said Kelly. 

      “I hope that this piece of legislation won’t leave this committee just in the form that it’s in now,” said Davidson.   

      His bill, House Bill 1559, is scheduled for a second hearing by the committee on Wednesday, and it could be voted on and/or amended at that time.

House members frustrated by Department after report on missing foster children

      Missouri House members aren’t pleased with a lack of answers from the Department of Social Services in the wake of a federal report slamming its lack of response when children in foster care go missing.

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      The U.S. Department of Health and Senior Services’ Office of the Inspector General report is based on 2019 data and was released last week.  It said the state does not properly report when children are missing and doesn’t do enough to keep them from going missing again, if they are found.

      “I was shocked by the scope of the report but I was not surprised by the content,” said Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R-Arnold), Chairman of the House Committee on Children and Families, which met Tuesday in response to that report.

      That study found that 978 children went missing from state care at some point during 2019.  In looking closely at the handling of 59 cases of children missing from foster care, it found that in nearly half there was no evidence that the state had reported those children missing as required by law.

Department of Social Services Acting Director Jennifer Tidball and Children’s Division Interim Director Joanie Rogers testify to the House Committee on Children and Families (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      The Committee heard testimony from Department of Social Services Acting Director Jennifer Tidball, who said many of the policy issues cited in the report stemmed from a previous administration.  She produced a 2016 memo from then-director Tim Decker that allowed caseworkers to quit some practices and documentation, some of which she says has been resumed since 2019.

      Coleman and other lawmakers were frustrated by what they saw as a “passing of the buck,” trying to blame that earlier administration, and a failure to follow the law and to implement programs the legislature has authorized to help the Division keep foster kids safe.

      “If the tools that have been given by the legislature have not been utilized and if the state and federal laws are not being followed because it’s the policy of the department, what enforcement mechanism could the legislature use to induce you to follow state and federal statute?”

      The top Democrat on the committee, Keri Ingle (D-Lee’s Summit), said Tuesday’s hearing was beyond frustrating.

      “What do we do if our own departments are telling us that they’re not following state and federal law and they’re not following their own policies and they’re not taking us up on additional resources when we’re offering additional resources?”

Representative Keri Ingle (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Coleman said she was troubled that the Department did not today provide much information outside of what was in the federal report and even challenged its findings.  She said the next step will be to hold a hearing focused on possible solutions.

      “We’re going to continue to work and see what pressure we can put on the Department to continue to follow state and federal law.  The committee will continue to hold hearings.  We’ll probably have one more and then we’ll have a report with recommendations and I would think that you’ll see legislation that comes out of this process,” said Coleman.

      After Tidball’s testimony the Committee heard from several child welfare advocates, offering their response to the report and possible responses, however Tidball and her staff left the hearing shortly after she spoke.

House Committee advances foster care, adoption supports

      A House Committee has voted to make adopting or fostering children in Missouri easier, with its support for two bills that are early-session priorities for chamber leadership.

      The House Committee on Children and Families unanimously passed House Bill 429, which would authorize an income tax deduction for foster care expenses; and House Bill 430 which would expand the state’s existing $10,000 tax credit for the adoption of children with special needs to any adoption. 

Representative Hannah Kelly (photo: Ben Peters, Missouri House Communications)

      The bills’ sponsor, Representative Hannah Kelly (R-Mountain Grove), said both proposals have been stalled in past years but are priorities of House Speaker Rob Vescovo (R-Arnold)

      “Because of Speaker Vescovo’s leadership we are looking at sending this thing to the House floor, sending it to the Senate right away, and it’s just awesome,” said Kelly.  “Today doesn’t have anything to do with Hannah Kelly, it has to do with Speaker Vescovo’s leadership and people who have gone on before me and plowed the ground.”

The proposed tax deduction for foster care would begin January 1 and continue for six years unless extended by the legislature.  Parents who foster children for at least six months would be eligible for a deduction of up to $2,500, or $5,000 for a couple filing jointly. 

Those who foster for fewer than six months could apply for a prorated deduction.  Kelly said extending help to those foster parents is no less important.

“Sometimes children need a safe place for just a few weeks while mom and dad get a house cleaned, or while they take certain trainings, or perhaps they simply need a temporary place to stay while they find a permanent placement, and so this also allows to be supportive to the foster parents who provide that respite care, that temporary place,” said Kelly.

      Kelly said anything that makes it easier for a child in foster care to be adopted isn’t just good for that child, it makes financial sense for the state. 

In the case of her own daughter, who she adopted last year at the age of 18, “If she would have stayed in the system she would have stayed there until she was 21 … from a financial standpoint … the state would’ve spent $21,000 just as a base amount, before she aged out of the system.”

      Vescovo, who was adopted out of foster care, called on House members last week to join him in expanding the adoption tax credit.

Missouri House Speaker Rob Vescovo (photo: Ben Peters, Missouri House Communications)

       “Together we can make adoption a possibility for many families who may not have the money but have the love and support to give a wonderful life to a person in need.”

      He also asked for members’ support for foster care reforms, including a tax deduction, “which can encourage more Missouri families to open their doors and their hearts to our young people in need.”

      “We know we have more than 13,000 kids in the foster care system and more enter the system every year.  We must take every step possible to give each and every one of these kids an open door of opportunity so they can grow into healthy, productive adults,” said Vescovo.

      With the committee’s action today, those bills will go before another committee and could be heard by the full House next week.

Bills would let victims of domestic or sexual violence or stalking get out of leases

When a person is trying to get out of a domestic violence situation one of their needs is a place to live, sometimes for children as well as their self.  If that person is under a lease agreement, property owners are under no legal obligation to release that person.  This could have lasting repercussions both financially and in finding another place to live.

Representative Jean Evans (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Bills 243, 544, and 683 Sponsored by Representatives Jim Neely (R-Cameron), Jean Evans (R-Manchester), and Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson), are aimed at helping such individuals.

“This legislation would go a long way to help victims get a safe place to live,” said Heather Silverman with the National Council of Jewish Women – St. Louis.

Those bills would prevent anyone at risk of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking from being evicted, being denied tenancy, or violating a lease agreement as a result of that risk.  A person who was a victim or in imminent danger of being victimized would be able to use that as a defense if a landlord takes them to court.  The bills would establish what evidence a landlord must accept as proof of such situations.

Kate Heinen with the Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault told the House Committee on Children and Families, “In 2014 … 23,000 women and children were denied shelter [in Missouri] because the shelters were full, and shelters are often full because people arrive in one and then realize that there’s going to be a much longer trajectory before they can access safe housing because of their disrupted rental history, because there’s no laws to protect them.

Representative Raychel Proudie (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“Allowing someone to be resolved of their lease agreement when they show some supporting documentation from a local program agency – an order of protection, a court record, anything that’s listed in the bill – is profound.  It’s huge.  It’s going to save lives,” said Heinen.

Heinen said individuals attempting to escape domestic violence often find it difficult to find a new place to live after facing problems getting out of a former residence.

“Either an eviction judgement on their record as a result of experiencing violence and being seen as a troubled tenant, or their rental history looks spotty because they’re seen as a troubled tenant as a result of experiencing violence, and then it makes it impossible for them to rent in their city or other places in their state,” said Heinen.

Representative Proudie’s legislative assistant, Holly Bickmeyer, told the committee she was 14 when she lost her mother due to domestic violence.  She thinks legislation like these bills could have made a difference in her life.

Representative Jim Neely (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“I feel like if something like this had been in place to where we would have been able to leave, it’s entirely possible that I would still have my mother today,” said Bickmeyer.  “Speaking as someone who has lived through that, I can tell you how much of a help something like this would have been.”

The committee held hearings on HBs 243 and 544 on Tuesday morning.  There was no opposition voiced.  Daryl Dewe, a registered lobbyist for the St. Louis Apartment Association, joined those testifying in support.

“Our landlords, most of all, we want our tenants to be safe and secure,” said Dewe.  “If that means, in a situation like this, helping them to a safe space more easily, then it’s the right thing to do.”

The bills would allow landlords to impose a termination fee when a tenant or lessee wants to terminate a lease early.

The committee has not yet voted on HBs 243 and 544.

Bill would add info on consent, violence, & harassment to sex education in Missouri high schools

A Missouri representative is proposing that high school students learn about sexual harassment, violence, and consent as part of sexual education.  Her legislation will be heard Tuesday night by the House Committee on Children and Families.

Representative Holly Rehder (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Sikeston Republican Holly Rehder said the idea behind House Bill 2234 was brought to her by students at the University of Missouri who said they wish they had received such an education.  They believe teaching high school students about those subjects could prevent situations that can cause life-changing harm, and Rehder agrees.

“What was so fascinating to me was you have these college students – two girls, is who initially brought it to me – that said, ‘We wish we would’ve had this,’” said Rehder.  “’We don’t know how they were in high school or what their reputation is back home and then we all get lumped in together and we’re at a party, or we’re at an event, or walking to the car, or whatever … you need to know how to speak up for yourself, set those boundaries, and you also need to know how to not cross them.’”

Numerous cases have put sexual harassment, sexual violence, and consent in the public spotlight.  One of those is the case of long-time USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar.  He was sentenced late last month to up to 175 years in prison for abusing young female gymnasts.  At least one of the women who gave a victim impact statement before his sentencing has written a letter in support of HB 2234.

Amanda Thomashow tells lawmakers she realized many of those Nassar assaulted didn’t know they were being abused, at least not at first, and trusted the doctor.

She writes, “more than anything I keep coming back to one particular question:  How can we prevent such a tragedy from happening ever again?  I have repeated this question in my head, over and over, searching for a way to save others from similar evils.  I know there are many answers and I know there is no easy solution when it comes to sexual assault.  However, I also know one thing with absolute certainty; we must add consent and sexual violence to basic sexual education curriculum.  We need to equip young people with knowledge to protect and empower them, and House Bill 2234 does just that.”

HB 2234 would expand Missouri law on what must be included in sex education materials so that they cover sexual harassment, sexual violence, and consent.  It would also seek to define those terms in relation to sex education.

It would define “consent” as, “a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.”

HB 2234 defines “sexual harassment” as, “uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate,” and defines “sexual violence” as, “causing or attempting to cause another to engage involuntarily in any sexual act by force, threat of force, duress, or without that person’s consent.”

Missouri school districts are not required to have sexual education as part of their curriculum.  The bill would require that these new areas be included for those that do.

Rehder said she looks at the issue not just as a legislator but as a mother of three.

“I think that’s the prism that we need to look at it through – what would we want for our children?  What do we want them to know and be prepared for before they go into college,” said Rehder.  “Or not college – before they go into the workplace and you have people over you.  I think that these are just very important things to know before you’re thrown out into the world.”

The hearing on HB 2234 is Tuesday at 5 p.m. in House Hearing Room 7 in the Missouri State Capitol basement.

Additional audio:

Representative Rehder said she wants students to learn how to protect themselves and to respect others:

“I want them to know some clear cut signals and how to make those clear cut signals.  I think it makes a lot of sense.  I think it’s a small – doesn’t cost the state anything but could do a world of good.”

House committee considers change to abortion parental notification law

A Missouri House Republican is again asking to require that both parents be notified before a minor in Missouri can have an abortion.

Representative Rocky Miller (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Lake Ozark representative Rocky Miller says it’s a matter of common sense, but Democrats argue the legislation could put some young women in danger.

Missouri law requires that a minor seeking an abortion and one parent or guardian of that minor give written consent before the procedure is performed.  House Bill 1383 would require that the parent or guardian giving consent notify any other custodial parent or guardian in writing before the minor gives her consent.  It would not apply in an emergency or for custodial parents or guardians that have been found guilty of certain crimes, are listed on the sex offender registry, are the subject of an order of protection, have had parental rights terminated, or for whom the whereabouts are not known.

Miller first filed the proposal five years ago and related it to his own experience.  His daughter at 15 became pregnant with his granddaughter, who he and his wife later raised.

“I did have a 15-year-old child that got pregnant and by the grace of God they notified me, which was nice,” said Miller.  “If you remember the first time we had this bill five years ago we had testimony from a woman … that said when she was 15 they went and got an abortion … well later her father, it was a married family, found out about it and he looked at her and he said, ‘I just want you to know I would have done whatever it takes if you wanted to keep that child,’ and she said – it was really gut-wrenching testimony – she said that she looks at her three children now and knows that there should be a fourth.”

Democrats including Stacey Newman of St. Louis oppose Miller’s bill, saying its requirement could put teenage girls in danger. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

In a hearing of the House Committee on Children and Families, Democrats said major medical associations have opposed Miller’s proposal each year because its requirement could put teen girls in danger.  They say despite the exemptions in the notification requirement it could force the involvement of a parent who is abusive or otherwise a danger to a pregnant teen.

Kansas City obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Valerie French told the committee, “The bill could put scared teens at risk to do something that would harm themselves.  This law could be detrimental to teens’ health and safety because research shows that laws like this one can delay access to care and force a teen to take measures into her own hands.”

In two previous years Miller’s proposal has been voted out of the House and approved by a Senate committee, but was not passed out of the Senate.

The Committee on Children and Families has not voted on HB 1383.