Bills would let courts finalize divorces while a party is pregnant, sponsors say it protects survivors
Loading...
Summary
Rep. Cecily Williams and Rep. Rachel Prouty told the Children and Families Committee that bills (HB 1908, HB 2337) would remove a statutory barrier that can trap abuse survivors; domestic‑violence and shelter advocates urged passage, saying pregnancy often escalates abuse.
Representatives Cecily Williams (HB 1908) and Rachel Prouty (HB 2337) asked the Committee on Children and Families to remove a statutory provision that, in practice, can prevent courts from finalizing divorces while a party is pregnant.
Williams, who spoke about her own experience, said the prohibition can leave survivors legally bound to abusers during a particularly dangerous period. "Not allowing a woman to get divorced in the state of Missouri is incredibly dangerous," she said, urging the committee to change the law so judges may enter a judgment of dissolution when a marriage is not reasonably likely to be preserved.
Domestic violence and victim‑service organizations testified in favor. Jessica Hill of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence told lawmakers that pregnancy often increases the likelihood of abuse and that finalizing a divorce can be a life‑saving option for some survivors. Rose Gaddis of Avenues Battered Women's Shelter said forcing a woman to remain legally bound to a spouse during pregnancy "strips her of dignity, agency, and safety." Several health and social‑service groups, Planned Parenthood and the National Association of Social Workers' Missouri chapter also went on record in support.
Committee members generally expressed sympathy and interest. Representative Mansur and others praised sponsors for returning the bills after last year's work, and Representative Dolan raised a related statutory question about the presumption of paternity (section 210.822) and whether it should be addressed in future amendments; sponsors did not oppose further consideration.
No witnesses registered opposition during the public hearing phase. Sponsors and advocates said removing the restriction would permit courts more discretion to protect adults and children in abusive families; the measures do not compel divorce but remove a statutory barrier that can delay custody, support and protective orders.
The committee took testimony and did not vote at the hearing. Sponsors invited follow‑up conversations on drafting and related statutes.
