Legislative Update - April 30, 2021
Article III, section 25 of the Missouri Constitution states that no appropriation bill shall be taken up for consideration after 6:00 p.m. on the first Friday following the first Monday in May (May 7); likewise, section 20(a) of the Missouri Constitution states that all bills remaining on the calendar after 6:00 p.m. on the first Friday following the second Monday in May are tabled (May 14). As a result, the General Assembly has one week remaining to adopt the bills that make up the state operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year and two weeks to adopt bills implementing any policy changes. The House and Senate have each adopted their own version of the budget. Over the next week, conferences committees comprised of members from both chambers will meet to resolve those differences.
To identify bills of interest in your practice area and see the latest legislative action on them, visit The Missouri Bar’s Legislative Engagement Center.
For a list of Truly Agreed and Finally Passed Bills, click here.
SENATE
Senate Floor Action
For a complete list of bills approved by the Senate and delivered to the House for consideration, click here.
Highlights of Senate Floor Action:
After the Senate Appropriations Committee had completed its work reviewing the House version of the budget, the Senate took up the appropriations bills on the Senate floor on Wednesday evening. Senate substitutes were offered and adopted for almost all of the House appropriations bills. The Senate versions of the appropriations bills were sent back to the House of Representatives for its concurrence. As regularly occurs, the House did not concur, and the two chambers will establish conference committees, so the differences between the Senate substitutes and the original House bills can be negotiated.
Senate Committee Action
On April 27, in the Senate General Laws Committee, Senator Holly Rehder (R – Sikeston) offered a Senate Committee Substitute for HB 585, introduced by Rep. Dan Houx (R – Warrensburg). As originally drafted, HB 585 would have revised section 194.119, RSMo, removing a surviving spouse as next-of-kin if an action for dissolution of marriage had been filed and was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. Senator Rehder’s substitute added language to modify the process for obtaining a license to practice embalming and funeral directing. The substitute also included the language of Senator Luetkemeyer’s SB 338, Bar-endorsed legislation relating to the interpretation of terms of familial relationship used in trusts and the distribution of income or principal from one trust to another trust, commonly referred to as “decanting.”
The Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee met on April 26, 2021, and held public hearings on the following:
SB 274 – Senator Angela Mosely (D – Florissant)
SB 274 would amend sections 452.340, 452.375, 452.377, 452.780, 453.110, and 475.060, RSMo, to provide that the obligation of a parent ordered to pay child support would abate if the other parent had permanently transferred custody of the child to a third party without first obtaining court approval.
Additionally, if a court found during a custody case that each parent was unfit to be a custodian and determined that custody with a third person was in the best interests of the child, the court would have to notify 1) the child's relatives within the fourth degree, and 2) any persons with whom the child had resided within 5 years, they could intervene to seek third party custody, if such persons were not already a party to the action. Any person could petition the court to intervene as a party of interest at any time and the court would be required to allow such intervention as a matter of right. Except where the court found that a relative were unfit, or if the welfare of the child required and it was in the best interests of the child, priority for third party custody would be given to an intervening grandparent or the relative closest in degree by sanguinity to the child.
A court could only enter an order denying third party contact with a child if the third party had been made a party to the action, unless the court found the third party could not be found and joined as a party.
The definition of "relocation" of a child in a custody arrangement would include the permanent transfer of custody of a child under a court order. If it were to be a proposed permanent transfer of custody to a third party, the legal custodian would be required to give written notice, by certified mail, of the proposed change in location to any noncustodial parent whose last known address is on record. The notice would not include the actual relocation address, but would include information on the noncustodial parent's right to intervene and seek custody of the child. Court orders establishing or modifying custody would be required to include the addresses of the legal custodians and noncustodial parents.
In a custody proceeding, persons who knowingly, purposefully, or intentionally failed to give accurate information as to the child's residences over the prior five years would be guilty of a Class E felony and reported to the local county prosecutor or circuit attorney.
Any person could file a petition for appointment as guardian of a minor, not currently subject to a prior custody order. Guardianship petitions would be required to include information about the minor's residences over the prior five years, and notice of the petition would have to be given to persons identified as having physical custody of the minor over the prior five years. Each of these persons would have the right to intervene and seek guardianship of the minor. Failure to give notice would be grounds to set aside the guardianship appointment.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Sheila Letcher
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Rachelle Coleman
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None in person
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition
Arnie Dienoff
HCS HB 825 – Rep. Adam Schwadron (R – St. Charles)
HCS HB 825 would amend chapter 304 and 570, RSMo, by adding two new sections (304.900 and 570.212) to set out the requirements for and prohibitions against operating and using a personal delivery device, which is defined as a powered device operated primarily on sidewalks and crosswalks and intended for transporting property on public rights-of-way. The device is capable of navigating with or without the active control or monitoring of a person. Such devices could (1) operate on any county or municipal sidewalk, crosswalk or roadway as long as they do not interfere with motor vehicles, traffic, or block a public right-of-way; (2) have all of the rights and responsibilities as a pedestrian; (3) must display a unique identifying number; (4) must be equipped with front and rear lighting; (5) have its use on highways or pedestrian areas regulated by local government; and (6) must be equipped to identify the device operator, who is required to maintain a general liability coverage insurance policy of at least $100,000 for damages arising from the combined operations the device under an operator's control. Such devices (1) cannot exceed a maximum of 10 mph when operating on a sidewalk or crosswalk; and (2) transport hazardous material. Operators would be prohibited from selling or disclosing personally identifiable likenesses to a third party for monetary compensation, but could use them to improve products or services, and disclose them to law enforcement with a lawful subpoena.
Section 570.212, RSMo, would create the offense of mail theft for any person intentionally taking mail from another person's mailbox or premises without the consent of the addressee and with intent to deprive the addressee of the mail. The first offense is a class A misdemeanor; a second or subsequent offense is a class E felony.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Tom Dempsey (Amazon)
Henrio Thelemaque (FedEx Corporation; Missouri Retailers Association)
Kara Corches (Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry)
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Arnie Dienoff
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
The Committee took the following action in executive session:
HB 744 – Rep. Lane Roberts (R – Joplin) Do Pass (4 to 0)
HB 676 – Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R – Arnold) Do Pass (3 to 1)
The Senate General Laws Committee met April 27, 2021, and held hearings on bills including the following:
HB 585 – Rep. Dan Houx (R – Warrensburg)
HB 585 would revise section 194.119, RSMo, to remove a surviving spouse as next-of-kin if an action for dissolution of marriage has been filed and is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. The bill would also allow the next-of-kin to delegate final disposition of the deceased to an agent through a power of attorney. However, an individual with a superior claim (as established by the list in the order of priority currently stated in section 194.119) would have to be given notice by a person with an inferior claim desiring to exercise the right to control final disposition. Under this bill, the notice could be in person or by written notice with delivery confirmation, rather than "personally served” with written notice.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Sam Licklider (Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association)
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Arnie Dienoff
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
The Committee took the following action in executive session:
SCS HB 585 – Rep. Dan Houx (R – Warrensburg) Do Pass (5 to 0)
The Senate committee substitute includes the decanting language from SB 338.
The Senate Seniors. Families, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee met April 28, 2021, and held hearings on bills including the following:
HCS HBs 1123 & 1221 – Rep. Hannah Kelly (R – Mountain Grove)
HCS HBs 1123 and 1221 would amend sections 211.447, 453.014, 453.030, 453.040, and 453.070, RSMo. Sections 453.014 and 453.070 would require persons granted the authority to place minor children for adoption and the assessments of petitioners for adoption to comply with rules and regulations promulgated by the Children's Division within DSS.
Section 211.447 would change the age threshold for abandoned infant or abandoned child from one year or under to under three years old and would set a time frame of 60 days prior to a petition of termination of parental rights to be considered for willful, substantial, and continual neglect by the parent. This bill would add felonies in Chapters 567 and 568, RSMo, to the current felony chapters for which – if a parent were found guilty and the victim were a child - the parent would lose parental rights. A loss of parental rights also would result if a child had been in foster care for fifteen out of twenty-two months prior to the filing of the petition.
Section 453.030 would repeal the requirement that prospective adoptive parents pay adoption-related legal fees for a birth parent. It would further allow the court to determine if the birth parent needs representation in adoption proceedings.
Section 453.040 would be amended to state that – when the parent has neglected to provide the child with necessary care and protection for at least six months – a parent must consent to the adoption of a child unless the child is under the age of three rather than one.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Sarah Topp (Missouri Coalition of Children’s Agencies)
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Arnie Dienoff
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
HB 76 – Rep. Jim Murphy (R – St. Louis)
HB 76 would provide for Safe Haven baby boxes as places where a parent could voluntarily deliver a child (forty-five days old or younger). The bill would authorize the Department of Health and Senior Services to promulgate rules relating to the “Safe Place for Newborns Act of 2002.”
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
None in Person
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Susan Klein (Missouri Right to Life)
Arnie Dienoff
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
HB299 – Rep. Wayne Wallingford (R – Cape Girardeau)
HB 299 would amend section 452.375, RSMo, to add a rebuttable presumption when determining child custody arrangements that equal or approximately equal parenting time would be awarded to each parent because it had been deemed to be in the best interests of the child. This presumption could be rebutted by an agreement by the parents on all issues related to custody, or by a finding of the court that a pattern of domestic violence or abuse of the child had occurred. The General Assembly also would urge the court to enter a temporary parenting plan as soon as practicable in a manner to assure both parents participate in custody decisions and had frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with their children.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Linda Reutzel (Missouri Family Law Reform Coalition Member)
Gina Nidelicato
Jeff Millar (Americans for Equal Shared Parenting)
Heather Carter (Americans for Equal Shared Parenting)
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Chris Diel (Americans for Equal Shared Parenting)
Jeremy Roberts (Americans for Equal Shared Parenting)
Arnie Dienoff
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
Lora Underwood (Family Law Attorney)
Simone Haberstock (Post-judgment Mediator)
TESTIFYING FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
None in Person
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms for Informational Purposes
Jennifer Carter Dochler - Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
The Committee took the following action in executive session:
SCS HB 60 – Rep. Adam Schnelting (R – St. Charles) Do Pass (7 to 0)
SCS HJR 6 – Rep. Adam Schnelting (R – St. Charles) Do Pass (7 to 0)
SCS HS HB 432 – Rep. Hannah Kelly (R – Mountain Grove) Do Pass (7 to 0)
SCS HB 299 – Rep. Wayne Wallingford (R – Cape Girardeau Do Pass (6 to 1)
HOUSE
House Floor Action
For a complete list of bills approved by the House and delivered to the Senate for consideration, click here.
Highlights of House Floor Action:
On Thursday, David Tyson Smith was sworn in as state representative for House District 45, replacing Kip Kendrick, who resigned his seat earlier this year to take a position as chief of staff for Senator Greg Razer. Rep. Smith is a practicing attorney with the law firm of Smith & Parnell in Columbia.
Representative Bill Hardwick amended HB 1008 (originally relating to covenants involving business entities) to include the Bar-endorsed decanting language from HB 758 (also sponsored by Rep. Hardwick). The House perfected the amended bill.
The House received the Senate substitutes for the House appropriations bills and initiated the process for budget conference committees.
House Committee Action
The House Committee on Crime Prevention met April 26, 2021, in executive session and took action on the following bill:
SS SCS SB 57 – Senator Karla May (D – St. Louis) Do Pass (8 to 1)
The House Committee on the Judiciary met April 26, 2021, in executive session and took action on the following bills:
SCS SB 91 – Senator Jeanie Riddle (R – Mokane) Do Pass (11 to 1)
An extensive committee substitute incorporated numerous House bills, including Raise the Age, municipal discovery, capital murder venue, evidence, courthouse control, and veterans court cost waiver.
SS SB 141 – Senator Jason Bean (R – Holcomb) Do Pass (8 to 4)
HB 1315 – Rep. Ron Hicks (R – Dardenne Prairie) Do Pass (12 to 0)
HB 902 – Rep. Tony Lovasco (R – O’Fallon) Do Pass (11 to 0)
The House Committee on Crime Prevention met April 27, 2021, in executive session and took action on the following bill:
SS SCS SB 71 – Senator Elaine Gannon (R – De Soto) Do Pass (9 to 1)
The bill was reconsidered by the committee because the version adopted last week had some language errors, which the chair corrected.
The House Committee on Public Safety met April 27, 2021, and held a public hearing on the following bill:
SS SB 212 – Senator Bill White (R – Joplin)
SS SB 212 would amend sections 56.380, 56.455, 105.950, 149.071, 149.076, 191.1165, 214.392, 217.010, 217.030, 217.195, 217.250, 217.270, 217.362, 217.364, 217.455, 217.541, 217.650, 217.655, 217.690, 217.692, 217.695, 217.710, 217.735, 217.829, 5 221.105, 549.500, 557.051, 558.011, 558.026, 558.031, 558.046, 6 559.026, 559.105, 559.106, 559.115, 559.125, 559.600, 559.602, 7 559.607, 566.145, 571.030, 575.205, 575.206, 589.042, 650.055, and 650.058, RSMo, add four new sections (217.199, 217.243, 217.845, 221.065), and repeal section 217.660, RSMo to modify several provisions relating to the Department of Corrections and the Parole Board.
It would replace the "Department of Corrections and Human Resources" with "Department of Corrections"(“DOC”) and the "board of probation and parole" with the "Division of Probation and Parole" or the "Parole Board,” and add that the chair of the board would appoint, employ, and provide training for employees as would be necessary to carry out duties. It would repeal the provision that the chair of the board would also be the Director of the Division of Probation and Parole.
DOC would be required to ensure all incarcerated persons were assessed for substance abuse disorders and make medication-assisted, physician-developed, treatment services available, without limitations. Section 191.1165 would be modified to include provide additional formulations of buprenorphine and naltrexone as covered medications.
Section 217.243 would provide that inmates would be charged 50 cents per visit for on-site, non-emergency medical exams or treatment, with the collected funds going to General Revenue. Inmates would not be charged for
Staff-approved follow-up treatment for chronic illnesses;
Preventive health care;
Emergency services;
Prenatal care;
Diagnosis or treatment of chronic infectious diseases;
Mental health care; or
Substance abuse treatment.
Indigent inmates, unable to pay the health care services fee, would not be charged.
Section 217.845 would require offenders receiving funding from the federal CARES Act to use such funds to make restitution payments ordered by a court.
Section 217.195 would repeal the current "Inmate Canteen Fund" and create a new one, which would have to be expended solely for the purpose of improving inmate recreational, religious, educational, and reentry services. The creation and operation of any canteen or commissary would have to be approved by the DOC Director.
Sections 217.199 & 221.065 would require the DOC Director and any sheriff or jailer to ensure an appropriate quantity of feminine hygiene products are available at no cost to female offenders while confined in any correctional center or jail.
Section 221.105 would continue to require DOC to reimburse to a county for the actual cost of incarceration of a prisoner, However, the provision requiring the amount would not be less than that appropriated in the previous fiscal year would be repealed.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Adam Albach (Department of Corrections)
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting, click here.
The House Committee on the Judiciary met April 28, 2021, and held a public hearing on the following: in executive session and took action on the following bill:
SCR 6 – Senator Mike Moon (R – Ash Grove)
SCR 6 is a concurrent resolution that would urge the U.S. Congress to resist any attempt to increase the number of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
None
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting, click here.
The committee took the following action in executive session:
SS/SCS/SBs 53 & 60 – Senator Tony Luetkemeyer (R – Parkville) Do Pass (11 to 0)
Twenty amendments to this bill were offered, and eighteen were adopted.