Missouri 2021 Update
May 18, 2021 by Linda Reutzel, Chair, National Parents Organization of Missouri
Against the backdrop of an unusual punctation point to a contentious session, the Missouri Senate Minority Leader pulled the plug with an amendment to end debate early on the last day of session, after voicing concerns over broken promises and deals that were not kept with members of the majority party. While family law reforms including shared parenting and maintenance legislation were on the Senate Floor the Monday of the last week of session in an amendment offered by Senator Bill Eigel, the Junior Senator from St. Charles, they did not cross the finish line. Apparently the deal not to allow a simple change in family law by creating a presumption of equal shared parenting and streamlining maintenance orders, held strong.
Who wins? Trial lawyers. The status quo wins, as major portions of this chapter of family law have not been updated in almost Fifty years. Who loses? Citizens of the state of Missouri who are already at a vulnerable point in their lives dissolving a marriage and deciding custody arrangements, a place most people probably don’t wish themselves to end up when they say “I do.” Most importantly, and heartbreakingly, children lose.
During the past 7 years this issue has been debated in the Missouri Assembly, mainly in hearing rooms but also on the Floor of the House and Senate Chambers in the Missouri State Capitol. An important point that will be revisited, testimony has made clear that this change in law will not remove or radically change a judge’s discretion in any particular case. What it will do is reduce strife and animosity between families as clear bright lines and guidance will give the Judicial branch simple tools with which to base their decisions. Children are less likely to be used as collateral when negotiating custody and maintenance orders, both parts of the same chapter of family law that desperately need reform.
There have been some advances made in the debate. Testimony provided several years ago attempted to conflate domestic violence issues with the creation of equal shared parenting. Given that equality tends to lessen conflict and a simple change in placement of language, the domestic violence coalition’s official position is one of neutrality. Kentucky, the first shared parenting state, has shown lower domestic violence cases and lower divorces since their law passed.
Additionally, the Missouri Constitution is clear on this aspect of equal shared parenting. In testimony this year, the point was raised that Article 1, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution States:
That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.
While the buzz in the Capitol was that the family law provisions were controversial, although depending on who you spoke with and at what time of day, either the shared parenting or the maintenance provision was the controversial one, both reforms’ language passed out of a Senate Committee by a vote of 6-1, hardly a vote that would suggest a major controversy. The shared parenting language portion overwhelmingly passed the House this year and made it to the Senate calendar. Similar versions of maintenance reforms have been voted due pass out of committee in the House. There was an attempt to pit shared parenting against maintenance reforms this session that was cleared up by the time Senator Eigel offered his amendment for reforms to both on the Senate Floor. Most importantly beyond process, the proposed changes in family law provide guidance so that there can be more equality and more certain outcomes, but they leave ultimate discretion to the Judge. Such reforms can hardly be considered radical.
The conclusion that all of this points to is simple: Opponents clearly want the status quo at any cost. Missourians deserve better.