marriage – Missouri House of Representatives Newsroom

VIDEO: House Votes to Tell Judges Not to Delay Finalizing Divorces due to Pregnancy

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.

“I stand before you hoping to change that for women like me, who were, and may be, trapped in dangerous situations. This bill is more than just a legal change. It’s a lifeline for women who are forced to stay in marriages because they are pregnant,” Representative Cecelie Williams (R-Dittmer) told her fellow House members. “No woman should be forced to remain in an abusive marriage, especially while pregnant.”

Watch Williams speak about her own experience on the House Floor, in the video below.

Williams and Ferguson Democrat Raychel Proudie sponsored the legislation this year, and Proudie echoed Williams’ sentiment.

“There [is] a myriad of reasons why we should pass this bill, but in the first place the reason we should pass this bill … is that every citizen should have access and a right to every judicial process and proceeding, their medical condition notwithstanding.”

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.

“It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of courage folks in this body muster up in order to make our colleagues aware of some of the challenges we face. The bravery, the selflessness with which you carry this piece of legislation is so admirable, so thank you so much, lady.”

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.

“Men who, for example, where serving overseas while their family was back home and infidelity occurred. They returned from serving their country only to learn they couldn’t legally separate from their spouse due to her condition, and that was a side of this piece of legislation that hadn’t occurred to me … this is a bill that helps women, but the more you think of it the more you really understand this is a bill about freedom, not just for women but for men, anyone who’s in a bad situation. Having access to the courts is so important.”

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.

“Ultimately, my abuser couldn’t abuse anyone anymore, he chose to take his life, and I was able to start healing. So I thought, until this bill was filed. The more that I talk about it, it’s a very raw feeling, walking around and people knowing your story, that you’re a domestic abuse survivor,” Williams said.

“After filing this bill and speaking about it, it became very apparent that I have a lot of unhealed wounds, and I need to deal with those, and I’m very thankful for that as well because, what better way to do it than with the support that I have, of our House members. We received bipartisan support. It’s really been incredible and I’m extremely grateful.”

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.

Bill to set Marriage Age at 18 clears House Committee

A proposal to eliminate state-recognized marriage for those under the age of 18 has been advanced by a House Committee. Several lawmakers expressed support for the change as a way to protect children, especially from traffickers. Others expressed hesitation about creating a roadblock to young couples who genuinely want to be wed.

*Representative Renee Reuter (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Missouri law was changed in 2018 to allow the issuance of marriage license to those 18 and older, and to those between 16 and 18 with parental consent. No licenses may be issued to couples in which either party is younger than 16.

The sponsor of House Bill 1200, Representative Renee Reuter (R-Imperial), said the 2018 change was an improvement, but it did not go far enough.

“There are problems in Missouri with human trafficking and … marrying young people off is one way to lock them in to sex trafficking for a while,” Reuter told the Committee on Children and Families. “We have to protect people from being trafficked, and so because of that I think we need to look at the law a little differently and I think we need to protect these women, mainly women, who are being damaged by the marriage laws that we have today.”

She said people who get married younger than 18 are trapped.

“One cannot get divorced in the State of Missouri until you’re over 18, so should you get married at 16, you’re stuck in that marriage because there’s no way to divorce until you’re 18,” added Reuter, who is an attorney.

Reuter cited the stories of women who married when younger than 18 and found themselves in situations of abuse from which they couldn’t escape.

“They were beaten, raped, and forced into sexual relationships with other people and it just got so bad that they ran away. When they ran away they would get picked up by authorities, and the first thing they would do is take them home to their husband. They wouldn’t take them to their parents, they would take them home to their husband … because they were married, and that was just a repeating scenario, and what would happen when they get back is things would even get worse. They just saw this as a way that they couldn’t get out of, they couldn’t get out of the marriage. Sometimes [their husband] would put them on a plane and take them to another country and they couldn’t get back. This is a real problem for people who are caught up in it. The marriage itself becomes the chains that are around the wrist, to keep them in this situation, and that’s not what marriage is supposed to be about.”

Some on the committee expressed opposition, saying they know people who were wed when younger than 18.

“I have multiple friends who have been married at 16, 17 years old and have amazing marriages,” said Representative Mike Costlow (R-Dardenne Prairie), but he said that was only part of his objection. His greater concern, he said, was about legal recognition for young families.

“Our age of consent law here in Missouri begins at 17. [For this bill to become law] would mean that we are saying you can legally go out, have sex, get pregnant, create a family unit, but you cannot get married to be recognized under the law that way, at 17.”

Some, like Carthage Republican Cathy Jo Loy, wondered whether the legislation could include an exception for marriages that are not in some way coerced.

“Right now I’m supportive of this bill, but I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that not all young marriages are that situation.”

Representative Ann Kelley (R-Lamar) said HB 1200 could result in a law that misses its target.

“If you’re going to do something bad, you’re going to do it no matter what, right … so who pays for it? The people that are wanting to get married for the right reasons, they’re the ones that are paying for it. I understand where you’re coming from, I just wish there were some exceptions or something in here to allow the ones that have good intentions to go ahead and get married.”

Upon hearing those concerns, Reuter suggested that her colleagues consider another way to look at such situations.

“In the Catholic church, you can get a divorce under Missouri law but the church does not recognize it unless you get an annulment, and to me they could come up with something like that within the church, but within the law I think we need to take this approach.”

Ozark Republican Jamie Gragg said the bill is in line with what has been the focus of the Committee on Children and Families in recent years.

“My grandparents were married at 14. We don’t live in the same world today, anymore, and our ultimate goal, and I think everything we’ve done here in this committee this whole year is protecting children, and that’s where our focus has to be and I think that your bill is doing just that … [regardless of] what used to be or what is allowed in other countries or other religions, here in America we have to protect the kids. We have to.”

The Committee’s top Democrat, Raychel Proudie (Ferguson), said there are parallels between what this bill seeks to address, and the fact that judges in Missouri typically refuse to finalize a divorce if one party in the marriage is pregnant. That has effectively prevented pregnant women in abusive relationships from being able to divorce their partner.

“If you’re not 18, regardless of what your situation is currently you just have to be there, and if you’re pregnant you really have to just be there, so it’s a bad situation all around.”

Proudie is one of the sponsors of a bill to deal with that situation, which was recently advanced by the Children and Families Committee.

Committee chair Holly Jones (R-Eureka) illustrated a further point in support of HB 1200. She asked Reuter, “Is there another contract that we can enter into under the age of 18 that’s legally binding?”

“I am not aware of any,” Reuter said.

A Senate version of this legislation made it to the House in April last year but did not reach the Governor’s desk.

In spite of the concerns that were voiced, HB 1200 was passed out of the committee with a 15-0 vote. The legislation now goes to another committee which could vote to send it to the full House.

House panel votes to tell judges they cannot delay finalization of a divorce until after a pregnancy

A bipartisan effort to tell judges they cannot delay finalizing a divorce because one party in the marriage is pregnant has been advanced by a House Committee. One sponsor says her own experience with domestic violence helps illustrate why this change is necessary to save lives.

Representatives Raychel Proudie and Cecelie Williams (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Missouri law does not prevent filing for divorce because one party is pregnant, but judges can, and in practice often do, wait to finalize a divorce until after that party gives birth.

“There’s no other situation that keeps people in a situation that they no longer want to be in except for not allowing a divorce to be finalized while you’re pregnant, in the State of Missouri,” said Representative Cecelie Williams (R-Dittmer), the sponsor of House Bill 243.

Often when a judge delays finalization of a divorce until birth, it is said to be to allow for considerations regarding custody and child support arrangements and other end-of-marriage considerations. Williams said that is not valid reasoning.

“I don’t think there’s at any point that being pregnant and/or wanting a divorce negates any of the support that a child should receive from a parent, whether they’re in utero or it’s a live birth. For that to be anyone’s argument is just not relevant in that situation.”

Identical bills filed by Williams and Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson) were approved by the House Committee on Children and Families.

“It is my belief that we should be able to avail ourselves of all legal processes and that the government should not be so heavy-handed in making people stay in dangerous and unsafe situations,” Proudie told the panel. “With all respect to individuals who believe that marriage should be long-lasting, sometimes it’s just not the best option for either party or any children that are involved.”

Both representatives said they have experienced and survived domestic violence, with Williams speaking publicly for the first time about her own experience and how it was relevant to this legislative.

“It’s something that I’ve lived and breathed for many years and have ultimately freed myself from because I gave birth, and knowing that you can’t have a divorce finalized while you’re pregnant is one of the situations that I feel that we, as the state, need to protect our women.”

Watch her testify for the first time publicly about her personal experience in a video below.

Both representatives say the change is needed for all parties in a marriage. Williams told the committee, “Their spouse could become pregnant by another man and they’re also in this relationship that they cannot get out of until that child is born, and it’s doing a disservice.”

Proudie said since she began dealing with this legislation, she has been approached with examples of how men can be affected.

“I have a 21 year old boy. If he went overseas and had to fight in somewhere war torn, heaven forbid, he’s been over there for eight months … his best friend calls him to tell him his wife was pregnant for five … without question that’s not his child. Lord forbid something happens to him and that individual is then responsible for whether or not to pull the plug on my child,” Proudie said.

Since the proposal was first filed in past years, some news reports and commentators mischaracterized Missouri law as not allowing pregnant women to get divorced. It also came to light that lawyers often advise pregnant women, incorrectly, that they cannot file for divorce.

Domestic violence advocates say the detrimental results have been that women in abusive marriages have been discouraged from filing for divorce.

The committee voted 14-0 to send the bill forward. Williams said it is no surprise that it is receiving bipartisan support.

“It’s a humanitarian issue and I think that both sides of the aisle can agree that this is something that needs to be changed in the State of Missouri.”

House Bills 243 and 280 must be considered by one more committee before reaching the full House for consideration.

House endorses minimum age for Missouri marriage licenses

The House this week voted to set a minimum age at which people in Missouri can get a marriage license, but the bill met more resistance than last year.

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

Marriage licenses can now be issued to persons younger than 15 under certain conditions. House Bill 1630 would increase that age to 17 and require a court hearing on whether the marriage is advisable. No licenses would be issued when either party is younger than 15, or when one party is 21 or older and the other party is younger than 17.

Bill sponsor Jean Evans (R-Manchester) began offering the legislation last year as a way to fight human trafficking; particularly cases in which abusers bring young trafficking victims to Missouri to marry them.

“Currently we do not have a minimum age of marriage in Missouri and this bill seeks to correct that,” said Evans. “In addition it will protect young people from predators and those who might do them harm with forced marriages.”

The bill had bipartisan support, including from St. Louis Democrat Michael Butler, who said it’s appropriate for the legislature to set a minimum age for things like marriage.

“A decision to get married … is a very important decision, and minors in a lot of cases, we know, generally don’t have complete control when that decision is made. To create a way for young people in our state to be protected from tough decisions that aren’t made by themselves, and we know this is occurring, is something that we should be doing,” said Butler.

Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) who argued that Missouri has a serious problem with human trafficking.

“If someone over the age of 21 – someone 30 years-old comes to a high school and engages in sexual activity with a 15 year-old or a 12 year-old or anyone under the age of consent that’s statutory rape, and right now that person can legitimately get married. That’s a problem,” said Dogan.

Similar legislation passed out of the House last year 139-1, but this year many Republicans opposed the bill. Some, including Lincoln Republican Wanda Brown, don’t like the requirement that a court hearing decide whether a marriage license should be issued for someone between the ages of 15 and 17.

Representative Wanda Brown (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“I’m not opposed, necessarily, to raising the age limit for marriage. What I’m opposed to is telling every parent in this state they’re not fit to make a decision for their child without asking a judge, and of course paying an attorney,” said Brown. “The bill was brought forward in the name of stopping human trafficking. This is a made-up concept. This does nothing to stop the traffickers. This only takes the parental rights of good, law abiding citizens.”

Others like David Wood (R-Versailles) expressed concern the bill might affect religious populations living in their districts.

“I have a very large Mennonite population. Mennonite population typically marries relatively young,” said Wood. “My court could get really backed up waiting on a judge to approve a lot of these weddings when they’re approved by the family, they’re approved by the church, and they’re welcomed in the community.”

Regarding concerns like those of Wood, Evans said her bill is very similar to one in place in Pennsylvania where there are significant, similar religious populations.

“If you’re under 18 you have to have parent permission and go before a judge, and the judge just has to basically say there’s nothing – there’s no ill will here. There’s not somebody taking advantage of someone. This is a good fit, the families support it, and go forward and get married,” said Evans. “It’s very similar to that and it’s worked very well in Pennsylvania where, again, they have much larger communities of Amish and Mennonite even than we do here in Missouri.”

Evans also said the bill does nothing to prevent a religious wedding ceremony.

Despite increased opposition over last year, a bipartisan 95-50 vote sent the bill to the Senate. Last year Evans’ similar legislation was approved by a Senate committee but advanced no further.

Another measure backers say will help fight human trafficking became the first bill sent to the governor’s office in 2018. Speaker Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) signed House Bill 1246. The bill, sponsored by Adrian Republican Patricia Pike would require the development of posters displaying information on human trafficking.

Proposal to increase minimum age for marriage aims to fight sex trafficking

A freshman state representative has filed another effort to make Missouri less attractive to sex traffickers.

Manchester Republican Jean Evans’ prefiled legislation would increase from 15 to 17 the minimum age at which a person can receive a marriage license. Missouri law allows teens as young as 15 to get a license when extenuating circumstances exist, as long as one of the teen’s parents gives consent.

Evans said traffickers have been taking advantage of Missouri’s law, bringing trafficking victims to the state to marry their abusers. That makes prosecuting the abuser difficult or impossible.

“That’s not something that we want to be known for, is a place for sex traffickers to come to do that sort of thing,” said Evans.

Evans said such marriages are able to take place because parents are sometimes involved in trafficking their own children. She said she learned about the issue from a report by KMOV reporter Lauren Trager.

“One of the things they discovered in the [House Task Force on Sex Trafficking] is that it was more prevalent than I think people may have realized. I recall one case where there was a woman who reported she had been trafficked starting at the age of 3, by her parents,” said Evans. “As disturbing and disgusting as that is, that is a reality that we’re dealing with, and to the extent that we can intervene we want to do so.”

Evans said practically, there is little done to investigate extenuating circumstances when a marriage license is sought for someone as young as 15.

“We’ve sort of left it to the recorder of deeds or whoever is issuing a marriage license in each particular county to determine that. I believe that that’s not their responsibility. They’re not social workers or FBI agents. They’re just issuing the marriage license as long as they have one parent’s consent,” said Evans. “I think it places an undue burden on them to investigate whether the circumstances are extreme, as outlined in the statute.”

Evans’ bill is not based on a recommendation from the Task Force on Sex Trafficking, but she has discussed the issue with its chairman, Springfield Representative Elijah Haahr (R). She sees her bill as part of a broader effort to fight trafficking – an effort based largely on the work of that Task Force.

House members will be asked to consider other legislation related to trafficking – much of it based on the work of the Task Force. HB 261 would require employers to display posters with the national trafficking hotline and related information. Other recommendations by the Task Force deal with creating a position in state government to oversee anti-trafficking efforts, and supporting groups that offer victims treatment and assistance to transition out of trafficking.

Evans’ legislation is HB 270.