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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.”
The state House has voted unanimously to tell judges they cannot delay finalization of a divorce based on one party in the marriage being pregnant. The vote came after one bill sponsor shared her own experience with domestic violence, and how she found herself pregnant but unable to divorce her abuser.
Representatives Cecelie Williams (left) and Raychel Proudie (right) speak in a side gallery in the House Chamber after the House voted unanimously to advance their proposal meant to clear the way for pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Missouri Law allows filing for divorce during a pregnancy, but judges typically wait to finalize a divorce until after that party gives birth.
The passage came after one of the proposal’s sponsors shared her own story of having been in an abusive marriage, and learning that she could not divorce her husband while pregnant.
The legislation was first offered during the 2023 legislative session by Representative Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City), who praised Williams for her bravery in sharing her personal story and getting this legislation so far, so early in session.
Legislators, visitors, and staff listened in silence as Rep. Cecelie Williams spoke about her own story of surviving domestic violence, in asking them to approve her bill to allow pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Aune said the proposal had been brought to her by domestic violence advocates, and she viewed it with such issues in mind. Once she filed it, however, she was truck by how many men contacted her to thank her.
After House voted to send the bill to the Senate, Williams reflected on how hard it has been to speak publicly about what she went through, an experience that included years of physical and verbal abuse, often in front of her young children, before her abuser took his own life just days before their divorce would have become final.
The vote to send House Bills 243 (Williams) and 280 (Proudie) to the Senate was 155-0. It now goes to the Senate, in which two versions of the same language have been filed.
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.
Some, like Carthage Republican Cathy Jo Loy, wondered whether the legislation could include an exception for marriages that are not in some way coerced.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
Representative Raychel Proudie (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Representative Melissa Schmidt (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
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.
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.
Madison Eacret with FosterAdopt Connect said those benefits could be going to things like housing, transportation, higher education, or other needs and wants.
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.
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.
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 Act would require that public and charter schools have anti-bullying policies and that those policies meet certain requirements. It would restrict the use of “zero-tolerance” provisions that would punish a victim acting in self-defense, and require that administrators considering punishments consider a statement from any student who engaged in self-defense.
The bill specifies that a school employee or volunteer who intervenes in an incident of bullying or other violence is immune from liability when following certain procedures, and that a district or charter school is immune to civil liability for disciplinary actions if following specified procedures.
The bill would also extend school districts’ efforts to counsel and educate victims of bullying to those students who engage in bullying. That provision was added by Marshfield Representative John Black (R), the sponsor of House Bill 2630, which has been paired with HB 1715.
Regarding investigations, the legislation would shorten the time in which a district employee who witnesses a bullying incident must report it from two days to one, and require that the report be in writing.
Results of investigations would have to be presented to all involved students and include a description of any interventions, initiatives, techniques, or disciplines. In cases in which an investigation finds that bullying occurred the parents of the instigator must be notified. If the finding is that the incident rose to the level of 2nd degree harassment, law enforcement would be notified, or in cases involving a student younger than 11, the state Children’s Division would be notified.
The House wants Missouri to stop taking money from the children in its care without their knowledge, money that they could use for things like continuing education, buying a home, or otherwise bettering their lives.
Representative Hannah Kelly (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
House Bill 2227 would end a practice legislators were “shocked” to learn the state has been engaged in, and one some called “egregious.”
Missouri has, for decades, taken benefits that are supposed to go to children in foster care and used them to pay its own agencies for providing that care. Those benefits include things like Social Security funds intended for those with disabilities, or survivors’ benefits for children whose parents have died.
About five percent of children under the state’s control are eligible for such benefits, which often amount to more than $900 a month per child. The intended recipients rarely know that someone else has applied for their money or that they were even eligible for these benefits.
In 2018, the state intercepted $8.1 million; in 2020, $7.9 million; and in 2022, the figure was last checked at $7.1 million.
The legislation would allow that money to be used for unmet needs that exceed what the state is obligated to pay. Legislators heard that in the case of social security benefits for a child about to age out of the foster system, one year’s worth could translate to two years of books and supplies for college; ten months of rent for a one bedroom apartment; up to one year of childcare; or to offset four years of SNAP benefits.
As HB 2227 has progressed through the House, legislators at each step, upon hearing for the first time what Missouri has been doing, have responded with disbelief.
Representative Raychel Proudie (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The House has voted to bar discrimination based on how people style their hair, specifically natural hair textures and cultural styles.
Representatives Raychel Proudie, LaKeySha Bosley, and Ashley Bland Manlove (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
For several years now, legislators have been asked to pass the “Missouri Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” or “Missouri CROWN Act.” House Bills 1900, 1591, & 2515 would specify that no person may be discriminated against based on hair texture or protective hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race or origin. The measure applies to any educational institution that receives state funding.
Each year that the legislation has been considered, legislators have heard testimony, especially from people of color, who said they have faced discrimination based on their hairstyles. Again this year, Missourians told the House Committee on Urban Issues that their hairstyles have been politicized; they have been discriminated against in job interviews and classrooms; and they have been made to feel like they cannot style their hair how they choose.
Representative Raychel Proudie (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The proposal has evolved over the years. The version passed on Wednesday by the House includes exceptions for the use of things like hairnets or coverings for safety purposes. This was a change pursued by Representative Scott Cupps (R-Shell Knob), whose background includes time as an agricultural education teacher.
He says in that curriculum, in particular, students need protection.
