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.

VIDEO: House Chaplain’s Prayer Mindful of KC Chiefs’ Super Bowl Appearance

In his daily prayer at the opening of the session, Missouri House Chaplain Msgr. Robert A. Kurwicki today delivered a prayer that reflected the hopes of the chamber’s Kansas City Chiefs fans, ahead of their attempt to win a third straight championship.

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. 

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.   

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. 

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

“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 103rd 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