Divorce case addresses abuse victims' protections

This April 10, 2014 file photo shows ceramic faces painted by clients at A Safe Place, a domestic violence shelter in Festus, on display during a crime victims' rights rally at the Missouri Capitol.
This April 10, 2014 file photo shows ceramic faces painted by clients at A Safe Place, a domestic violence shelter in Festus, on display during a crime victims' rights rally at the Missouri Capitol.

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley's office late Friday asked a St. Louis County judge to reconsider her April 13 order blocking the secretary of state's office from intervening in a divorce case.

"Our office believes the judge's actions are mistaken," Hawley spokeswoman Loree Anne Paradise told the News Tribune, "and that is why (we) filed an emergency motion to reconsider."

The attorney general's motion is the latest action in a case that also has Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft asking about 1,500 people to reapply for participation in the "Safe at Home" program, which shields the addresses of abuse victims.

That program was written into state law in 2007.

But St. Louis County Circuit Judge Sandra Farragut-Hemphill ruled on Jan. 31, as part of that divorce case, the wife was not really part of the "Safe at Home" program because she "did not provide a sworn statement that she has a good reason to believe that she is a victim of domestic violence and fears further violent acts from (the husband)."

The News Tribune generally doesn't identify the names of abuse victims, and in this story, the woman is referred to as "the wife," "her" or the "participant" in the Safe at Home program.

Ashcroft's office asked to intervene after the Jan. 31 ruling, arguing: "The application by (the wife) was properly accepted by the Secretary because her application was signed and witnessed by a registered Safe at Home application assistant, thereby meeting the requirements of the statute."

But Farragut-Hemphill denied Ashcroft's motion to intervene on April 13 - the same day she ordered the wife "to provide her address before leaving the courtroom."

It was the third time since September Farragut-Hemphill had ordered the wife to provide her personal address to the husband's attorney and to the guardian ad litem, the lawyer representing the couple's child during the divorce proceedings.

The wife's mother - Sheila Rilenge, of University City - told lawmakers in a recent letter her daughter was told if she "did not provide her home address before leaving the court, she'd be held in contempt and would face jail time. My daughter felt she had no choice but to share her address."

Rilenge also told lawmakers her daughter originally applied to be part of the Safe at Home program (SAHP) because Farragut-Hemphill "wouldn't allow a motion for a full order of protection to be heard at its scheduled hearing. Because my daughter is terrified of her abuser, she initially refused to provide her home address when ordered to do so, (and) her attorneys referenced her participation in the SAHP."

Rilenge gave the News Tribune a copy of her letter to lawmakers.

She told lawmakers the situation was "setting a historical precedent in our state which re-victimizes those who've already been victimized."

In its six-page motion filed Friday, the attorney general wrote Missouri law says: "The Safe at Home program was created to 'protect victims of domestic violence, rape, sexual assault or stalking by authorizing the use of designated addresses for such victims and their minor children.'

"A person may participate in the program by submitting an application to the Secretary that identifies 'one or more addresses that the applicant requests not be disclosed for the reason that disclosure will jeopardize the applicant's safety or increase the risk of violence to the applicant or members of the applicant's household.'"

The request for reconsideration also noted state law gives the secretary of state authority to "certify the applicant as a program participant and assign the applicant a designated address different from the applicant's actual, confidential address. Critically, the statute authorizing the program requires that state and local agencies and the courts shall accept the designated address as a program participant's address when creating a new public record."

Hawley's motion noted the judge had interpreted the law "to conclude that (the wife) was not a certified participant in the Safe at Home program despite the fact that the Secretary had already considered (her) application and certified her as a participant in the Safe at Home program."

But Ashcroft's office changed the Safe at Home application form after Farragut-Hemphill's Jan. 31 order because her interpretation of the state law "potentially could have jeopardized the safety of (the wife) and other Safe at Home participants," the attorney general wrote.

Frank Jung, Ashcroft's general counsel, told the News Tribune last week Farragut-Hemphill's ruling revealed a potential problem with the Safe at Home program lawmakers should address.

"Our office was not ordered to disclose the participant's address," Jung explained. "Rather, the judge ordered the participant to disclose her address to her spouse's attorney.

"There is nothing in the law that allows a judge to order a participant to disclose their address. But there is nothing in the law that prohibits a judge from ordering a participant from disclosing their address."

Jung said Ashcroft's office already has asked lawmakers "to work on proposed language which would limit when a judge could order a participant to disclose their address and give the SOS standing to intervene."

Meanwhile, Hawley noted in Friday's motion to reconsider, the wife has submitted a new, properly sworn application to participate in the Safe at Home program, and Ashcroft has accepted the application and certified her as a program participant.

Hawley's motion for reconsideration added, now, "The Court has no basis - and no authority - to force (the wife) to publicly disgorge her protected address information."

He added: "The clear purpose of the Safe at Home statute is to protect vulnerable Missouri citizens from disclosure of sensitive, protected address information unless the Secretary determines that exigent circumstances exist for doing so.

"No such determination has been made in this case."

That divorce case originally was filed by the husband in January 2016 and is set for a trial beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday - so Hawley's motion asks Farragut-Hemphill to consider the new motion on an expedited basis.

But the online Case.net docket reporting system doesn't show any action by the judge on that request.

Rilenge told lawmakers in her letter: "This whole situation has shocked the entire advocacy community in St. Louis, and numerous agencies and organizations are now actively trying to prevent this from happening to another victim."