Raychel Proudie – Missouri House of Representatives Newsroom

‘Missouri Fathership Project’ plan sent to Senate

A plan to help good fathers overcome anything that keeps them from being with their children has been given overwhelming bipartisan support through the House, and has been sent to the Senate.

Representative Jamie Gragg (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 1948 would create the “Missouri Fathership Project” in the Department of Social Services. Representative Jamie Gragg (R-Ozark), the bill’s sponsor, said the Project would promote fatherhood engagement and empower dads to become successful in engaging with their children.

“This doesn’t take dads who do not want to be dad. This will take dads who want to be dad who have barriers that are in the way and help him navigate that,” Gragg said. “Whether it’s the court system, whether it’s job security insecurities, whether it’s working through and trying to navigate legal issues that he has gotten himself into. Whatever it takes to get from where he’s at today where he’s not with his children, to with his children, because we have children that need their dads.”

Gragg’s proposal would create the Missouri Fathership Project Grant Program and an accompanying fund. This would support grants for family-focused community agencies, faith-based agencies, family advocacy programs, and nonprofits to have Fathership Project specialists on staff.

Representative Pattie Mansur (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“Those fathership engagement professionals will help those dads maneuver those roadblocks, and it’ll help them be dad again so those kids can succeed and we can get children away from these statistics and they can succeed in life.”

Another provision in the bill states that fathers participating in the program are eligible for limited driving privileges when those might have otherwise been revoked, and protected from having occupational or professional licenses revoked.

Representative David Dolan (R-Sikeston) said his experience as a prosecutor and a judge showed him why that addition is needed.

“I would see these fathers that would come to court, and they were responding to come in for non-payment of their child support. And they would look at me and say, ‘I’m doing the best I can, but how do you expect me to pay this support if I can’t get a job, or if I can’t get to a job?’ So this would provide that if they’re participating in a program, they’re trying to work, that the court can give them their driver’s license to participate in the program and make them better fathers for providing their support.”

That section also prevents participating fathers from losing hunting or fishing licenses. Dolan said this is because for many fathers, especially those who are struggling, hunting and fishing allow them to provide for their families.

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

The legislation received unanimous votes in two committees and passed out of the House 141-4. Along the way, some of its most vocal supporters were Democrats, including Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson).

“There are fathers who are working and trying to reintegrate back into their children’s lives or to do better in their children’s lives. And it is a value of this country to have those two-parent homes when and where possible, where safe and where feasible. This is our way of doing our part to be pro-father is not to be anti-mother.”

Representative Marlene Terry (D-St. Louis) said it’s a shame that such a program is needed, but there is no doubt that it is, and some of the state’s own systems are the reason for that.

“There are a lot of good fathers, great fathers. Just like there are a lot of great mothers. But our child support system needs a total overhaul. It is biased and it is not fair. And so fathers have to go through organizations like this in order to make things happen within their children’s lives,” Terry said.

Representative Raychel Proudie (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Pattie Mansur (D-Kansas City) said this program could prove vital for men who are coming out of the Department of Corrections.

“It is not only good for kids, but it’s in fact really important for successful reintegration because helping these men re-establish a family network, helping these individuals feel that they have a purpose and a connection and obligation to their family supports their ability to get work and to get stabilized and then become contributors to our community,” said Mansur.

In addition to creating the Missouri Fathership Project, HB 1948 would make Jone “Fathership Month,” encouraging activities and events to raise awareness about the importance of fathers being a part of the lives of their children.

The bill is now in the Senate.

House Bills propose Registry of Repeat Domestic Abusers

A bipartisan effort to create a registry of individuals convicted of repeated domestic violence is ready for consideration by the full Missouri House.

Representatives Tiffany Price (left), Raychel Proudie (center), and Ann Kelley (right) are sponsors of legislation that would create a registry of persistent domestic violence offenders in Missouri. They say it could offer people a chance to avoid entering into relationships with individuals who have a history of abuse. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Bills sponsored by Representatives Ann Kelley (R-Lamar), Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson), and Tiffany Price (D-Kansas City) would define “persistent domestic violence offenders,” and require those convicted after January 1, 2027 to be placed on the new registry. It would work much like the existing sex offender registry, but with no address.

“This registry will be accessible for public inquiry, allowing communities to be informed and vigilant. While the privacy of offenders will be respected by excluding personal identification details, the community will have access to the information that could save lives,” Kelley told the House Committee on Crime and Public Safety. “By investing in these programs, we can break the cycle of violence and foster a safer environment for our families.”

Kelly’s bill is called “Adriana’s law,” for Adriana Horton, a 12-year-old girl from Golden City, who was abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered by a habitual domestic abuser.

“‘I named this proposal Adriana’s Law because I refuse to let her become just another statistic. Her name should not only be remembered in grief, but in prevention, accountability, and action. This law ensures that when we say her name in this chamber, it is tied to protection, not just tragedy,’” Kelley said, quoting a statement from a constituent.

Proudie’s legislation is similarly named for Brianna Johnson of Wentzville, a mother of two who was pregnant with twins when she was murdered by a persistent domestic abuser in October, 2023.

“It was another individual who had a lot of things in their background as it relates to rape and abuse, and yet were allowed to be out in the community to continue to commit these types of violations to another person’s human rights,” Proudie told the committee. “We can attach so many people’s names to this because this is a persistent public safety issue. It’s not just public safety and then domestic violence. Domestic violence is a public safety issue.”

Price shared her own story of escaping abuse with her children.

“From 2011 to 2016, I lived under constant fear. Domestic violence was just not physical; it was coercive control, sexual coercion, and economic instability. Every decision I made was about survival, not choice. Sometimes compliance is safer than resistance. Survival decisions are not consent; they are calculations under threat. I used to make notes and hide them all around the house with all of his information on it stating that if anything happened to me, he was responsible.”

Price said that story is not just hers.

“Locally, Kansas City had 19 domestic violence homicides last year, and KCPD South Patrol has started tracking offenders, but it’s not enough. On that list, one offender has 31 domestic violence reports filed since August, and another has 17 reports, six since August. These numbers show the urgent need for preventative measures. [This legislation] is that step. It ensures warning signs are taken seriously, survivors are supported, and systems provide timely protection.”

House Bills 3058 (Price) and 2997 (Proudie) were combined into Kelley’s House Bill 3012 (Kelley) and passed out of the committee on a unanimous 17-0 vote. After clearing a second committee on Thursday morning, the legislation can now come up for debate in the full House.

These bills follow the creation of a registry in Tennessee which went online on January 1. In its first 41 days online, nearly 40,000 people had already visited that registry. Proudie said the legislation is modeled after what was passed by legislators there, and that it would only be applied to those who have already been the subject of due process.

“This is for persistent offender individuals who have either pled or have been found guilty of domestic violence, with ways in which they can get off the registry over time,” Proudie said.

“‘A domestic abuser registry is not about revenge; it is about transparency. It is about informed consent in relationships. It is about stopping repeat offenders from moving quietly from victim to victim, home to home, and state to state,” Kelley testified.

Proudie agreed, adding that she has been asked whether the registry is about shaming the individuals who would appear on it.

She told the committee, “This is not about retribution, shame, or embarrassment, but like I said this morning, if that’s what these individuals feel when placed on this registry, that is an appropriate feeling for them to have. Because treating individuals like this is shameful. It is embarrassing and it’s something that they should absolutely be ashamed of.”

The legislation would also create a “Domestic Violence Prevention Fund,” and a prevention program that would award grants using money from that fund, to support prevention and intervention services. The fund would be supported by $50 out of a registry fee of $150, to be paid for by each registrant.

The bill would create time frames for an offender to be removed from the registry. Its provisions would expire in 2032, and terminate the following year unless renewed by the General Assembly.

Baby Boxes Proven to Work in Missouri, Expansion is Next

Updated 08/13/2025: This past weekend, a child was safely placed in the Safe Haven Baby Box at Mehlville Fire Protection District Station 2. This is the second time a child has been placed in the state’s first Baby Box, and the second time a Baby Box in Missouri has been utilized. The child received immediate care and is doing well.

Missouri House legislation aimed at saving the lives of babies has been fully implemented, it has worked, and now the House has acted to expand it to reach more communities across the state.

For mothers in need of help, the Safe Haven Crisis Line is (866) 99BABY1, or visit shbb.org

*Missouri’s first Baby Box was installed at a fire station in Mehlville in August of 2023. Six months later it was used for the first time. (Photo: Matt Markivee, Missouri House Communications)*

In 2021, the legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill allowing for the installation of Safe Haven Baby Boxes— secure, climate-controlled incubators where newborns can be safely and anonymously surrendered without legal consequences for parents. The boxes offer a compassionate option for mothers in crisis who are unable to care for their newborns.

The first such box was installed at Mehlville in August of 2023. Just six months later, it was used for the first time: a newborn girl, believed to be only hours old, was placed in the box. She was quickly cared for, adopted, and is now healthy and safe. Then, on the afternoon of August 10, a child was again placed in that box. This was the second time a Baby Box in Missouri has been used. That child received immediate care and is doing well.

“We’ve had to use the Box already — and everything worked out perfectly. Everything worked the way it was supposed to. The legislation worked and the final product worked, and we’re just excited that through those efforts it’s going to expand it all across the state,” said Mehlville Fire Chief Brian Hendricks, who has become a figurehead for Baby Boxes in Missouri.

The idea to bring the Boxes to Missouri was brought to Representative Jim Murphy (R-St. Louis) by a constituent who had read about their use in other states. Murphy sponsored the language that became part of House Bill 432 in 2021, allowing Boxes to be used in Missouri and for babies up to 45 days old to be surrendered anonymously.

Murphy is proud to see that legislation become reality. In carrying it, he has consistently said that women in a crisis such as this should not be judged but praised.

“A woman that goes through the process of deciding that [her] life is in such a situation that [she] can’t give this baby a future, she has made an incredible decision,” Murphy said. “She has made a decision that this baby is more important than her feelings, and we needed to make that as easy for her and as seamless for her, as anonymously as possible.”

One of the Boxes’ biggest proponents in the House is Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson), a member of the House Appropriations Committee who led the effort to secure that funding in the budget.

Representatives Raychel Proudie (center) and Jim Murphy (right) visited the state’s first baby box, at the Mehlville Fire Protection District Station 2, and participated in a regular test of the box was carried out under Fire Chief Brian Hendricks (left). (Photo: Matt Markivee, Missouri House Communications)

So far, seven Safe Haven Baby Boxes have been installed in Missouri and more are on the way, including a second in Mehlville soon to come online. This year, the legislature set aside in the current state budget $250,000 for a cost-share program to help entities cover the cost of installation, enough to contribute to 25 more Boxes.

She said while many people may not be able to understand how a person could make the decision to give up a baby in this way, it is a reality, and one that often plays out with tragic results. The use of Baby Boxes prevents many such tragedies.

“I think we all look forward to a time where we can stop hearing about babies being found in dumpsters, or in bathrooms, or in trash cans, or under trees, or buried. We are in the business of not only saving lives but improving the quality of life for the citizens of Missouri,” said Proudie. “A lot of people may not be able to fathom it but for individuals who do first responders’ work, they’ve seen some of everything that the average person has not experienced, have not seen, and will never see, and so when they tell us that they need some assistance in this way and it makes sense, we’re more than happy to oblige.”

Hendricks said every part of the state should have one of these, because this kind of crisis could happen anywhere. As an official who has already gone through the process of having one installed, he offers his help to leaders in other communities.

“Just let me give you the answers to the test. I’ve tripped, I’ve fallen, I got back up. I’ve dealt with the state. I’ve dealt with the legislature. I’ve dealt with it. You can just take all this information and copy it and do it at your place,” Hendricks said. “I think you’re going to see this program explode across the state of Missouri because of the actions of the legislature, of the legislators.”

For those who want to learn how to get a baby box in their area, Chief Hendricks invites them to contact him at the Mehlville Fire Protection District.

Proudie and Murphy recently visited Mehlville Fire Protection District House 2, the site of the first Baby Box in Missouri and where the little girl was dropped off last year. They participated in a test of the box and got to see firsthand the response to its use. They saw responders at the fire station react and saw the various alerts and alarms that go out when the Box’s door is shut.

The Station’s personnel are trained in all manners of neonatal care, so they can ensure the health of a baby in any situation.

“It’s a commitment, but it’s worth every minute,” Hendricks said.

The whole system is impressively and carefully designed to monitor the health and safety of the baby, protect the anonymity of the person who puts the baby in the box, and provide that person with information on how they can seek help, and who to contact if they change their mind and want to be involved in that baby’s life.

Created thanks to legislation that began in the Missouri House, the state’s first Baby Box has already saved one life. The sponsor of that legislation, Rep. Jim Murphy, hopes it is never used again, but is glad it is here if needed.

“Inside the box there is a packet of information and that’s just for the person that surrenders the baby. It gives them resources that they can use to address their medical care, to address counseling. All roads lead to taking care of a woman in crisis as well as the baby.” Hendricks said.

Murphy remains impressed by the system every time he sees it, and he says that thoroughness is necessary.

“The last thing we want to do is have a baby surrendered and not have all of these things happen to ensure that that baby, from day one, is going to be cared for. As you saw through all the redundancy in this program, I don’t know how it could fail because there’s so many different fail-safes in this, and it works. It just simply works and we’ve proven it works,” Murphy said.

Hendricks said the night that the Box was used remains one of his proudest moments in 13 years of being a Fire Chief. When he called Murphy to let him know what had happened, Murphy broke into tears.

“It was an incredible moment in my life. It moved me forever,” Murphy said. “If I do nothing else worthwhile, and I’ve done a lot of things in the legislature, but this one I think is the most important because we actually saved a life.”

“I hope it’ll never get used again, but if it does it needs to be here.”

Previous stories:

House legislation enables safe place to surrender newborns in Missouri

VIDEO: ‘Baby Box,’ created by House efforts, used for first time to safely surrender a newborn

An End to State Seizure of Foster Children’s Benefits Headed to Governor’s Desk

The Missouri legislature has voted to ensure that money intended for children in the state’s foster care system goes to those children and not the state, and in doing so the House has kept a promise it made in January.

*Representative Melissa Schmidt (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Legislators first learned during the 2024 session that the state had for decades been intercepting benefits intended for foster children – things like railroad pensions and social security payments – and applying that money to the cost of providing their care. In fiscal year 2024, that amounted to more than $10.6 million seized by the state.

House members were “shocked” to hear that children, particularly those who have already gone through a tragic life-altering event, who have lost their parents, were being “victimized,” as one lawmaker put it, by the state.

“That was the other thing that kind of sealed the deal for me: hearing stories of kiddos that this actually affected,” said the sponsor of House Bill 737, Melissa Schmidt (R-Eldridge). “Children that knew that there were pension dollars reserved for them and then expecting that when it was time for them to age out, and then coming to the realization that they wouldn’t have access to those dollars, and they were planning to use those for education, for transportation, for housing, all the things that we want them to be able to use those dollars for, and I would say the things that their parents who left the pension had hoped they could use those dollars for.”

Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson) said of the legislation, “These children, who’ve already been through something traumatic which brought them into our care, should not be subject to something unique and even more punishing.”

Schmidt, who is in her first year in the House, took up the legislation after talking to the predecessor in her house seat, Hannah Kelly, who originated it. Kelly, whose focus during her four terms was on children and what the state can do about the traumas they face, returned to the Capitol this week after learning that HB 737 had been sent to Governor Mike Kehoe (R).

“Nobody likes to talk about the state-induced trauma, and I believe this bill embodies correcting a long-standing, state-induced trauma.”

Kelly often mentions one little girl who approached her during the proposal’s first committee hearing last year.

“She just looked up at me with big ol’ eyes and she said, ‘You filed that bill?’ and I said, ‘Yes, ma’am,’ and she said, ‘Well that bill’s going to help me.’ Those are few words, but her and I both knew what those words meant. That was her way of telling me, ‘I lost my parents, I’m in foster care, and it’s going to help me. The enormity of the grief attached to, ‘That bill’s going to help me,’ really touched my heart that day … I’d always kind of give a renewed push when I thought of that girl, and she was the first thing I thought of when I got the word that it had been truly agreed and finally passed.”

Kelly had to leave the House due to term limits and when Schmidt won that district the two of them spoke, and Kelly asked her to take up this bill. Schmidt said in spite of the fact that she and her husband have served as foster parents and have a long history with the system, she had never heard this was happening.

“When we began to have this discussion I thought, ‘This is a no-brainer to me this needs to be adjusted and fixed,’ and I will say that the department has worked very well alongside me … they also saw that it was an area that needed to be fixed.”

Schmidt said the legislation will end a practice she, as so many before her, called “shocking,” while ensuring the state Children’s Division will be able to continue to provide care.

“We were able to work closely with our budget committee to ensure that the department was still able to care for foster kids. That way it wasn’t a burden to them too, but I think the perspective that we came with was that actually was never our money, so it never should have been something we were using. So, yes we had to get strategic but we found the dollars and our department will be able to continue to care for children the way they should and our foster kids will get the pension dollars that are earmarked for them,” Schmidt said.

Proudie, who has been one among the most vocal about this issue since its introduction, said of the bill’s passage, “I’m glad it finally went through. Finally, we can give foster kids what they’re entitled to and what they deserve. We should not be charging children for existing and their own expenses. When they become Missouri’s kids they become Missouri’s responsibility not their own responsibility. We don’t treat any other children like that in the State of Missouri.”

Proudie said she hopes that a next step will be to find a way to do something for those whose money has already been taken by the state.

“I hope we provide some kind of remedy or reparations for them. And, a lot of them who have gone through this have come back to testify, of course they’re not bitter about it. They want this, they know that this is an issue, they live this issue, they don’t want it to happen to any other children,” Proudie said. “I don’t know what that would look like because it’s been tens of thousands of children over time, and it would be something we would have to appropriate, but I’m certainly interested in a conversation.”

The legislation had fallen short last year despite its broad, bipartisan support and outrage at the practice. When this year’s session began in January, House Speaker Jon Patterson (R-Lee’s Summit) pledged that it would be passed this year.

“When we all convened here January 8 we said that was our number one priority and I’m happy to see that it got done. I think it got even better with some of the other provisions on there, and I think the governor will get that signed and I’m very happy that we were able to do that.”

Among the “other provisions” added to HB 737 were language to nullify nondisclosure agreements in child sexual abuse cases, and to ban marriages for anyone younger than 18.

The House’s last vote on HB 737 was 129-14. It now awaits action by Governor Kehoe, who once his office formally receives it, will have 15 days to either sign it, veto it, or allow it to become law without his action.

Previous stories:

House Renews Effort to End State Seizure of Foster Children’s Benefits 01-22-2025

House Acts to stop State Seizure of Benefits Intended for Foster Children 04-02-2024

House Unanimously Supports Banning NDAs in Child Sex Abuse Cases

The Missouri House has voted to take away one of the tools sexual predators use to protect themselves, and to be able to find and abuse new victims. House Bill 709, which was sent to the Senate this week, would bar the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements in cases of child sexual abuse.

*Representative Brian Seitz (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Such legal contracts sometimes come into play in abuse cases, particularly when parents or guardians accept a settlement with an abuser. These contracts have left victims unable to talk about what they experienced, and their abusers have been enabled to change locations or jobs without anyone knowing what they had done, allowing them to continue their transgressions in new places and against new victims.

“It’s an injustice and a wrong that we can make right, now,” Representative Brian Seitz (R-Branson) told his colleagues.

Seitz is the sponsor of HB 709, the latest version of a proposal he has offered for several years now. He urged his colleagues to again advance it after other forms of the measure have already received broadly supportive votes across multiple legislative sessions.

In this latest bid, Seitz told his fellow legislators, “Through no fault of their own, children and/or the medically disabled who may have been abused in the past are being abused again by the misuse of NDAs in civil settlement agreements.”

“These are legal mechanisms that were created to protect trade secrets, not trauma secrets. Again I state: NDAs are wholly appropriate if you’re dealing with manufacturing trade secrets, but they can kill trauma victims,” said Seitz, referring to the fact that some victims have chosen to end their own lives, after an inability to speak out multiplied their anguish.

Other House members offered strong support. Columbia Representative David Tyson Smith (D), an attorney for two decades, said to silence a child is one of the worst things a person can do, especially when they have been abused and are too young to make for themselves the decision to agree not to speak about it.

“Non-disclosure agreements, when you deal with children, are basically unethical. It silences them. They need the ability to tell their story to heal, and often times when families have their children sign them or they sign them, these predators are allowed to continue operating around the state and nobody can talk about it, so this is a way to stop those Predators from continuing to abuse people and it allows the victims to heal and to tell their stories,” Smith said.

Representative Rudy Veit (R-Wardsville), another practicing lawyer, told his fellows he has dealt with abuse survivors and seen firsthand the courage it takes for them to acknowledge what they have experienced, even to themselves.

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

“[It adds] insult to injury, then, to tell them when the case is settled that they have to keep a secret and they live the rest of their lives with that secret, while the pedophiles continue to go about their business and start up somewhere else. More importantly is at that moment, they may agree to [sign] and keep a non-disclosure, but then what happens is the time goes on they start to think, ‘Could I have done more to prevent others [from being abused],’ and so now they’re living the rest of their life with another guilt feeling that they didn’t do more, and just eliminate that process.”

Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson), who focuses much of her legislative efforts on protecting children, also stressed the importance of adding this language to Missouri law.

“Typically, non-disclosure agreements or NDAs are put forth to protect business interests. No one should be in the business of hurting children,” Proudie said. “We should not be protecting the business interests or behaviors of perverts and people who hurt children.”

709 reaches the Senate with only three weeks remaining in the legislative session, but versions of the proposal are moving in several other forms and on several other bills. Seitz expressed optimism during the debate, noting that in the Senate as in the House, the bill has received “total, bipartisan support.”

“I’m advocating for these victims to be able to at least have their voices heard after their innocence has been taken through the criminal actions of others. This legislation will help them heal, to share their stories, and attempt to come to terms with what happened to them as children,” Seitz said.

“While 709 cannot fix the horrific events leading up to signing an NDA, it can prevent the silencing of child crime victims in the future and would certainly make Missouri safer for all.”

HB 709 was advanced to the Senate 148-0.

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.

VIDEO: House Members Threaten Budget of State Public Defender over Hiring of Man Convicted in Relation to Stepdaughter’s Murder

Some members of the House Budget Committee said on Thursday they would vote down the entire state Public Defenders Office budget requests if that agency continues to employ a man convicted of two felonies in relation to the murder of his 9-year-old stepdaughter.

“How can anybody say that employing this man and providing him with a good future in some fashion furthers the interest of justice for Rowan Ford, a 9-year-old child who died violently while her stepdad stood back and kept his mouth shut? How does that further the interest of justice for that child?” asked Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), the House’s Assistant Majority Floor Leader, who was sitting with the committee as an ex-officio member.

The man to which he referred is David Spears, who in 2012 pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and hindering prosecution in the 2007 murder of his stepdaughter, 9-year-old Rowan Ford, in the southwest Missouri village of Stella. He at one time confessed to raping and murdering Ford along with another man and to helping hide her body, but evidence and the other man’s confession contradicted his description of events, and defense attorneys contested the confession as allegedly having been coerced. Prosecutors later withdrew their original charges against him, and he accepted a plea agreement on the lesser charges.

That other man, Christopher Collings, was executed by lethal injection in December at the state prison near Bonne Terre.

Spears was released from prison in 2015 and in 2016 was hired by the Public Defender’s office. After a period during which he was not employed by the public defenders, he was rehired in 2020 and continues to work out of its West Plains bureau.

“He’s got a paycheck, he’s got benefits, and he’s got a future, which Rowan Ford does not because she’s dead, and the idea that he is being paid for at public expense; tax dollars paid for by Rowan Ford’s mother, Rowan Ford’s extended family, Rowan Ford’s classmates, Rowan Ford’s teachers, and the police officers who had to investigate that horrible crime are all paying David Spears’ salary.”
Rep. Lane Roberts

The Secretary of State’s Accountability Portal website shows David Spears is a secretary employed by the judiciary (the Office of Public Defender is an independent department of the judiciary), and that last year he made $40,842.00.

Shortly after the Public Defenders’ Director, Mary Fox, began her presentation to the committee for her agency’s budget requests, she was met with outrage from committee members over Spears’ employment.

Chairman Dirk Deaton (R-Seneca) read a summary of the case and then asked Fox, “So in the opinion of, and perhaps yourself, but certainly the human resources manager, the general counsel, the division director, the immediate public defender hiring authority, and the deputy director, it was their belief that these offenses – felony child endangerment leading to the death of a 9 year-old girl, obstruction of justice, hindering of prosecution – wouldn’t impact the individual’s ability to represent the agency effectively?”

Fox responded to that question by saying that she cannot discuss a personnel matter in a public hearing, but as the hearing continued, she defended Spears’ hiring, saying that the agency and Missouri believe that “people with criminal convictions should be able to be employed, even by the state.” She said there was doubt as to what Spears’ role in the crimes against Rowan Ford was and said he has performed well in his job.

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

As the exchange progressed, Deaton told Fox, “I believe people deserve second chances and … people deserve to live their lives and go on. Not everybody deserves to work for state government. That would be my firm belief and position. Nobody’s owed a taxpayer job and a salary, and this is just one of the worst lapses in judgement I have ever seen.”

“I don’t think anybody is owed a state job, but I will say that if a person is successfully performing then there is not a reason to terminate,” Fox responded.

Deaton told her, “Well, Miss Ford certainly deserved to live, and she didn’t get that opportunity.”

Deaton then gave the floor to Representative Roberts, who was the Chief of the Joplin Police Department when Rowan Ford was murdered and during the subsequent investigation.

“We as an agency, and I think that Missouri as a state, believe that people with criminal convictions should be able to be employed, even by the state.”
Missouri State Public Defender Director Mary Fox

Roberts began by stating his respect for Fox and the work done by her and those in her agency. He then recounted a letter to the Commissioners of the State Public Defender that he penned in December which was also signed by fifteen additional current and former state representatives, including Deaton.

See Rep. Roberts letter to the Missouri State Public Defender here, and click here to see the Missouri State Public Defender Commission’s letter in reply.

Regarding Spears’ employment, Roberts wrote in that letter, “There is no defending this situation. It is wrong by any standard and we are unwilling to accept it.”

It continues, “The rationale by which the public defender’s office determined that hiring David Spears was a good idea absolutely defies reason. It is unconscionable and offends the memory of Rowan Ford, further robbing her of justice. We call on the Public Defender Commission to use all legal means at its disposal to terminate the employment of David Spears. Further, we expect the Commission to develop hiring protocols that will ensure that such monumentally foolish hiring decisions are prevented in the future.”

Since that letter was sent the Commission did alter hiring practices, and Fox confirmed that the changes are in “direct response” to the letter.

Under the changes, potential new hires will now be subject to investigation for potential conflicts of interest. Roberts and others say there was a conflict of interest in Spears’ hiring, particularly in that he was hired while his one-time co-defendant Christopher Collings was being represented by public defenders.

The other change is that when a background check reveals what Fox called a “bad report,” the Director and the Chair of the Commission must be consulted. Previously, such notification extended only as far as the office’s deputy director.

House Budget Committee Chairman Dirk Deaton addresses reporters during a media conference with House Speaker Jon Patterson. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

As to the legislators’ request that Spears employment be terminated, Commission Chair Charles Atwell issued on January 16 a letter to Roberts stating that after a review of Spears’ case and of Missouri statutes governing the office of public defender, “we believe that the authority to terminate employment of a clerical employee is not an express power granted to the Public Defender Commission.”

Roberts told Fox, “I got this token change that doesn’t even include the Commission members. Why, when you’re making a decision of this nature, are the members of the Commission cut out? Why’d they have no voice, and one person gets to make a decision like this, and before you answer, because its rhetorical, let me just say this: I’m angry about this for a couple of reasons. When you and I spoke you explained to me that David Spears is doing a good job, and I’ve heard people say, ‘Well yeah but he’s paid his debt to society, and yeah we want to rehabilitate him.’ Director, I just plain don’t care. I don’t care about the reputation of the Public Defenders. I don’t care that he’s doing a good job. He has not, and will never, pay his debt to Rowan Ford.”

As the exchange continued, Fox and Roberts disagreed over the circumstances of Spears’ actions in relation to the murder of Rowan Ford. Specifically, Fox contested Roberts’ statement that Spears led authorities to the little girl’s body.

“This is the most ridiculous presentation we’ve heard. It’s embarrassing.”
Rep. Jeff Vernetti

“There’s a lot of details in a case … if you look at the evidence that was presented at the one case that went to trial, the evidence was that they went through the entire area. Some of the places they went, they went with Mr. Spears, but they did not find the body when they were with him. They did go back to many of those areas and one of those areas that they went back to, they did, eventually, find the body. But I would disagree with you, and I think the prosecutor in the case would disagree with you that Mr. Spears took them to the body,” said Fox. “I know that you were involved in law enforcement in the area at the time and were talking with the folks from McDonald and Barry [counties], but I think there was disagreement even among the police officers from Barry County and the police officers from McDonald County. One group felt Mr. Spears was responsible, the other group felt that he was not.”

Roberts countered, “People who aren’t familiar with this might accept this, but I was there. It was David Spears who directed law enforcement to the place where they found that body. It was David Spears who sat quietly for six days while the mother [was] searching for her child and didn’t tell her. More importantly, he’s on the local media playing the part of a bereaved father begging people to return his child while her mother is standing right there,” Roberts said.

He continued, “The man’s conduct was despicable by any standard, and in return for which, he now has a job. He would not be working for the Public Defender had he not had a previous relationship. He would not have a previous relationship had he not done what he did. You can’t decouple that sequence of events. He’s got a job today because of what he did. He’s got a paycheck, he’s got benefits, and he’s got a future, which Rowan Ford does not because she’s dead, and the idea that he is being paid for at public expense; tax dollars paid for by Rowan Ford’s mother, Rowan Ford’s extended family, Rowan Ford’s classmates, Rowan Ford’s teachers, and the police officers who had to investigate that horrible crime are all paying David Spears’ salary.”

Roberts told Fox that his concern has nothing to do with the quality of Spears’ work, but that he is employed by the state at all. After their exchange, other members of the committee echoed that sentiment.

Most passionate was Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson).

“I’m a no on this entire [budget request] book.”
Rep. Raychel Proudie

“I’m shaking, like I’m physically ill, so I’m going to leave after I say this. Let me just say I’m a ‘no’ on this entire book,” Proudie said, referring to the entire budget request from the Office of Public Defender. “With good conscience spirit I can’t go back to District 73 and tell these people that it is okay for us to use their money to pay someone who was complicit and willful even if it wasn’t for the murder, this man stood there with that woman while she was looking for her child.”

Echoing Deaton’s comments about whether Spears’ employment reflects badly on the office, Proudie said, “it does, because I’m going to walk out of here, and when it comes up, if that man is still employed, if I’m elected to something else [in the General Assembly], it will be a ‘no’ on this budget for the entirety of time that the Good Lord sees for me to serve in the legislature, and I mean it. So, if you don’t think it damaged your reputation, it absolutely did. I can’t believe that that was the response that you… I would have rather you sat there and said nothing.”

As to the office’s budget request, Roberts told Fox, “I am angry enough that I am going to ask the chair to consider an amendment during markup. I know you have [a new request to the budget committee] for some additional people. If this is going to be your hiring practices, then I would suggest that we deny that until such time as your policies allow the Commission to weigh in on these decisions and they have the majority vote.”

After her statement, Proudie did something she said she has never done in her seven years as a state representative, no matter how controversial or objectionable she found a subject: she walked out on the hearing. Outside the hearing room, representatives not on the budget committee later commended her for saying what they were thinking as they watched the hearing.

Her departure was soon followed by that of first year legislator, Representative Jeff Vernetti (R-Camdenton), who said, “This is the most ridiculous presentation we’ve heard. It’s embarrassing.”

“As a member of 163 [members of the House], subcommittee that controls [the budget of the Office of the Public Defender], member of budget, I’m a ‘no.’ I’m not even interested in hearing it until this is addressed,” Vernetti said before he, too, walked out of the hearing.

“I just plain don’t care. I don’t care about the reputation of the Public Defenders. I don’t care that he’s doing a good job. He has not, and never will, pay his debt to Rowan Ford.”
Rep. Lane Roberts

Following those remarks, Deaton told Fox she could continue with her presentation, but she asked if it should be continued at another time.

“I don’t want you to just say, ‘No, I won’t consider your budget.’ That’s not fair,” Fox told the committee. “I know you’re angry and I appreciate why you’re angry, and I just want you to think about the fact we experience this anger 80,000 times a year in our jobs, and we have people who do this really hard work, and they deserve your attention. They deserve for you to hear who we are – all of us, not just one person – who we are and what we do, and why it’s so important.”

Roberts and Deaton agreed it would be better to continue the office’s presentation at another time. With the committee’s schedule for next week already set, Deaton asserted that it would likely be two weeks before it could happen.

Deaton cautioned, “If we’re at the same place, say it’s in two weeks, I think we’re probably going to be right back where we are.”

Fox thanked the committee for listening to her, as well as to Deaton and Roberts, and agreed to come back at another time.

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 legislation.

“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 Renews Effort to End State Seizure of Foster Children’s Benefits

A House panel has launched this year’s effort to make sure that money intended for Missouri’s foster children gets to those children and isn’t intercepted by the state.

An estimated 12,000 young people in Missouri’s foster care system are eligible for benefits from the Social Security or Veterans Administrations, or railroad retirement benefits, often because they are the survivors of deceased parents or because they have disabilities. The state Children’s Division takes those benefits to cover the costs of caring for those children. Social Security benefits, alone, can be around $900 or more each month.

House Bill 737 would end that practice.

Legislators expressed shock and disbelief when they were first introduced to this issue in 2024, and the House passed a bill then to address it but that did not reach the governor. HB 737 is this year’s version, and at the urging of new House Speaker Jonathan Patterson it is among the first bills being considered in 2025.

“We must prioritize the most vulnerable among us, especially our foster kids,” Patterson said in his address on the opening day of the session, calling for this legislation to be the first bill the House passes this year.

HB 737 sponsor Melissa Schmidt (R-Eldridge) told the House Committee on Children and Families that the practice, “depletes a resource that could meet crucial needs and be a significant support for foster children as they age out of the system and attempt to enter into adult living.”

Madison Eacret with FosterAdopt Connect said those benefits could be going to things like housing, transportation, higher education, or other needs and wants.

“It’s really difficult when you’re in foster care and you’re transitioning at 18, to go out into the world, and these funds are really critical for that transition.”

Schmidt recalled for the committee testimony offered last year from a young man named Ian, who experienced this firsthand.

“During his time in care he stated that he had one source of hope. His mother served honorably in the U.S. Navy and Ian was eligible for her survivor benefits through both the Veterans Administration and Social Security. He had hoped these funds would help him through college and to establish stable housing and secure transportation. However, Ian learned when he turned 18 and exited foster care that the system had depleted those funds.”

Committee members expressed similar sentiments to those that were heard during the debate in 2024. Ferguson Democrat Raychel Proudie has been among the most vocal.

“The fact that any government would do such a thing to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, let alone children, is absolutely repugnant. The fact that we do this makes me sick. It’s outrageous,” Proudie said.

She explained how this practice could create a situation in which foster children don’t receive the same care that peers in their households receive, because there isn’t enough money to go around.

“I’m so embarrassed that our state does this. It does add some equity when you’re raising kids, foster children, to not treat them like they’re not your kids. That’s all they want, is to be treated like they belong somewhere.”

St. Peters Republican Wendy Hausman also filed a version of this proposal. She thanked Schmidt for carrying it.

“This is an amazing bill and it needs to be done, and we need to pass this as fast as we can because children need this.”

Chairwoman Holly Jones (R-Eureka) joined others on the Committee in thanking Speaker Patterson for making this a priority.

Representative Holly Jones (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“I love that we are starting this year, this 103^rd General Assembly Children and Families Committee off with this bill, and something that we can all get around.”

HB 737 includes two other provisions.

One would specify that the offense of abuse or neglect of a child does not include letting a child do things like going to school or nearby locations on foot or by bicycle; play outside; or stay at home for a reasonable amount of time without supervision. Any such “independent activities” must be deemed appropriate for the child’s age, maturity, and physical and mental abilities.

The other would require the Children’s Division to attempt to place a child in its care with a person, agency, or institution governed by persons of the same religious faith as that of at least one of the child’s parents. Missouri Courts must already do so. The bill would require that the Division follow the same procedure.

The committee has not voted on HB 737.

Earlier story: House Acts to Stop State Seizure of Benefits Intended for Foster Children