Welcome to Illuminating Hope, a podcast of Hope
House. In this series, advocating justice, the
legal battle, we dive into the legal battles
that shape the fight for domestic violence survivors.
In each episode, we bring you powerful conversations
with the legal teams, court advocates and change
makers working tirelessly to bring justice, protection
and hope to survivors of domestic violence. From
the courthouse to policy changes, from survivors'
rights to legal strategies, we uncover the critical
role the justice system plays in breaking cycles
of abuse. Whether you are a survivor, advocate,
or someone passionate about justice, this podcast
series will empower and inform you. Justice isn't
just about the law. It's about giving survivors
a voice, protection, and a future. Cheryl L.
Rosen is a retired Missouri Circuit Court Commissioner
who served with distinction in the 16th Judicial
Circuit based in the Eastern Jackson County Courthouse.
With a legal career spanning a decade, Commissioner
Rosen was widely respected for her commitment
to family law and her tireless advocacy for survivors
of domestic violence. Born in Denver, Colorado
and raised in St. Louis, Missouri, Rosen earned
her bachelor's degree in journalism from the
University Colorado at Boulder. At just 20 years
old, she went on to receive her law degree from
the University of Missouri of Law in 1978. Rosen
began her legal career at Legal Aid of Western
Missouri, where she represented survivors of
domestic violence. She played a key role in drafting
and lobbying for Missouri's first adult abuse
statute, laying the groundwork for stronger protections
for abuse victims across the state. She later
transitioned to private practice, continuing
her focus on family law. In 1994, she was appointed
as a Family Court Commissioner, where she presided
over contested family law cases and a truancy
court program. Throughout her judicial tenure,
she was recognized for her integrity, compassion,
and unwavering commitment to justice. She also
served as a guardian at Lightham. Her contributions
have been honored by the Kansas City Bar Association
and Missouri Lawyers Week. reflecting her impact
both in the courtroom and in broader legal communities.
Now retired, Commissioner Rosen leaves behind
a legacy of advocacy, service, and leadership
in Missouri's family court system. Commissioner
Rosen, welcome to the Aluminum Home Podcast.
We're so glad you're here. Thank you for inviting
me. First, I have to say, go Tigers. Because
I did not know you were a Mizzou grad. I am Mizzou
myself, so I love it. an attorney on just the
other day and she had her BA in journalism as
well, which I thought was ironic that two attorneys
and judge would have their degrees in journalism
first. Why is that? I was interested in writing.
I was on the school newspaper and then about
that same time Watergate happened and you know
Woodward and Bernstein and being a journalist
was a proud profession the same way being a lawyer.
You helped write the adult abuse statute. Can
you talk a little bit about that process and
the different hoops you might have had to jump
through? I had just gotten out of law school
and I was hired by Legal Aid. At that time across
the country all of a sudden people were starting
to realize that domestic violence was a problem
and so there was a coalition that proposed legislation
that came from other jurisdictions. It took three
years to get through. It was a long process because
it took a lot of persuasion of people to really
understand that this was a problem, and I think
people know about a problem, we just didn't talk
about it. But things like the Missouri Bar did
not want to be a sponsor of this kind of legislation.
One of the lawyers who did talk to me about this
said, well, we should make it part of the Small
Claims Act. I said, what? And he said, yeah,
you go in, you get that time, you know, $1 ,000
limitation, but that domestic violence was a
small claim. It was not easy getting it through
the legislature. It took a while, and I remember
sitting in the house, chambers and it was like
they were doing their best to kill it. And I
remember these three guys arguing it just to
keep the other people not from doing in terms
of the procedure and the process. And so the
State Senate was a real issue because that's
always been more conservative. A state senator
from Springfield was very concerned that the
act would be used by gay and lesbian people.
I mean, obviously it was not written, but there
had to be then, it's not there anymore, but more
oriented to not same -sex couples. But this was
1979 and 1980. Things got better. Maybe not so
much now, but at least the Act can be used now
for whatever that relationship is. It was bare
bones. There is a criminal component for violation
of an order, and when first drafted it had civil
consequences, contempt of court, that kind of
thing. And contempt of court can be a long, arduous
process in terms of trying to do enforcement
that way. And I remember sitting in and the office
of the representative from St. Louis and police
chief from St. Louis was there. I mean, there
really were a lot of people there in terms of
a lot of support in trying to get this done.
I think it was state rep Weed who later became
our congressman here. Why don't we have a criminal
provision for enforcement? You violate it. And
at that time, and I said, how do you do that?
He said, well, we're the legislature. We can
do anything we want. And so that's when it had,
at that time, and because they were concerned
about it, it was a misdemeanor violation. Since
then, there's now both felony and misdemeanor
violation, but these were baby steps. And I don't
want to say we were making it up as we went along,
but sometimes we were. And sometimes you had
to deal with people and make it palatable for
them to pass, that kind of thing. And I can't
tell you we thought this would be a done deal,
especially when you explained to, and generally
there were not that many women in the legislature
at that time, that you were going to remove somebody
from their house, their castle. When I was working
for legal aid, I had one client killed during
a domestic violence situation. I think those
who work in this area know things happen quickly.
You've got to work quickly. You need the police
there quickly. You need the courts to work quickly.
And courts don't always work quickly. And this
was the first, at least in this jurisdiction,
the first time that people were really looking
at the problem. And it was. It was people statewide.
It wasn't just out of St. Louis or Kansas City.
It was support statewide. Because finally people
were I mean, there were shelters here. There
were not shelters here. The thing we don't talk
about. I'm sure in the 70s and 80s, this was
almost impossible to get something like this
passed. Nowadays, at least, we have people having
the conversation more and more and more, but
that's because of you foundation builders that
had to build on that. Well, it's not just me.
It was many people. It was many people. And I
caught the case that happened to be the case
that got brought in front of the Supreme Court.
It was this marvelous woman, incredibly strong
black woman. And the court's judges, people were
looking. for a means to test the constitutionality
of the adult abuse act, because again, you're
removing people from a residence or something
else like that. And I was representing her. The
judge denied the order of protection because
he said the statute was unconstitutional. And
there we went. It had not been tested across
the country. There had been other things and
there had been other states where it had gotten,
but it had never been actually appealed up to
the state level. So they went to the court of
appeals. Anyway, it ended up in the Missouri
Supreme Court. And I handled that appeal. I mean,
we had the support of some people out of DC with
regard to an amicus brief and things like that
in terms of, well, because it was gonna be possibly
a case of first impression. And if this went
down and all of us had been kind of following
the same statutory language, if it went down,
all of them were gonna go down. So it was pretty
scary. As a practitioner, what was it like when
you were representing? for these laws were in
place. Was there a case? What did that look like?
You just said get out of there if you can and
there weren't places to go and and as you know
now still it's hard for people to get out financially
or anything else like that but these cases would
end up in municipal court. Those are ordinance
violations here and usually there was never any
kind of jail time. It was just be a judge saying
wagging their fingers saying you stay away from
them. We didn't use compare restraining orders
either because that's a long arduous process
as well. And I was working with people at Legal
Aid who had literally no money. You know, how
do you put up a bond for a temporary restraining
order? And because it was not immediate relief,
you know, you said you got to get out of there.
Not that that's always the solution either. I
mean, I think, look, I've always told people
that the order protection is a piece of paper.
It doesn't stop bullets. It doesn't stop this.
You have to be proactive in terms of how you
take care of yourself and usually your children.
But this is much better than what we have. had,
and I think having that, police hate domestic
violence cases. They're the most dangerous thing
they go into, except maybe stopping somebody
on the highway. And this gave them at least a
tool. It maybe gave them the idea that this is
more important than it had been treated. Not
that they didn't treat, you know, assault appropriately
or something like that, but it's the old rule
of thumb. I can beat my wife with a stick, you
know, as long as it's the size of my thumb. I'm
not saying police. towards that but you know
this is the transition of what happened but I
think it made police say well now I can do more
or now I should do more yeah no I gotta start
somewhere and build off of everything that you've
the foundation of what you put in place so that
case that you were at the Supreme Court with
I'm assuming you won Denise Williams that's her
name yeah it was under advisement for like six
months and we were like who knew when I argued
the case you never know which way it's gonna
go the court knew it was a case of first and
I mean, there were some technical arguments as
to why it might be unconstitutional because the
title didn't include something else. It's all
the stuff that we lawyers love to do to not get
to the real meat of the issue. My real concern,
frankly, was the criminal provision. The court
upheld all that. I mean, it wasn't unanimous
and some of the dissents were pretty strong,
but they upheld the statute. And once it was
upheld and there was publicity, there was publicity
when the statute passed, but it started being
used more in more and not just in the cities
but in the more rural areas of the state of Missouri
because there was this attitude rightfully or
wrongfully especially among law enforcement in
the rural areas that we can take care of our
own we don't really need this kind of thing and
maybe they did I don't know it changed things
it did yes we won now the statute now is really
different than how it originally passed and we
did add provisions we had some provisions regard
to custody and things like that. But there are
a lot more things in it now. I don't think the
stalking provisions were as clear then as they
are now. It just takes time and other constitutional
challenges from other places. And so what we
have now is not what we had then, but it was
the major start. But it wasn't just me. I need
to make that clear. I mean, I did handle the
appellate case, but it wasn't just me doing this.
The reason we have I Think Anything Here is because
people of like minds or who see a problem say,
how do we work together to do something to solve
it? I'd like to go back to the discussion with
the abusers or the offender having to leave the
home being constitutional or not being constitutional.
Today, you don't hear a lot of that happening.
As a matter of fact, it would probably help if
the abuser or offender did have to leave the
home. Is it still written in the statute that
that's the case? Or are we seeing that happen
today? It does. That's the order. It's not just
a stay away provision, but it's you have to leave
the residence. And that still remains, I think,
the crux. of the statute because the problem
is not that they were ordered to leave the house,
it's the fact that it was done ex parte. Ex parte
meaning just done on the petition of the person
saying this happened, this happened, this happened.
So the legal process, and this has always been
this way, the petition gets filed, it gets sent
to a judge, and the judge reads the affidavit.
And if the affidavit supports that, then they
can issue an ex parte or protection or Now in
the vernacular, they just call it, people call
it an ex parte and they don't even know what
that really means. It's always amused me, actually,
at this point. But it was without a hearing.
The provisions were, they're out of the house,
the police can get them out of the house if they
don't leave or if they violate the ex parte order,
there are the criminal violation provisions.
And then there's the hearing, what, 15 days later,
I think. Okay. Very important. So the whole issue,
as we keep hearing today, due process, due process,
due process, this was depriving somebody of their
property rights without a hearing, without that
provision, without you gotta go now, you gotta
leave now, or the police can get you out of there,
or whatever. Imagine waiting 15 days, what can
occur in 15 days? You know, there are issues
with regard to notice and service and everything
else like that. But that's what was so radical
about these things, which nobody thinks about
these days, thank God, but what was so radical
was that this was done based upon somebody just
saying, this happened, this happened, this happened.
And I won't tell you that that the statute doesn't
get abused or people lie, but when you weigh
and balance what's happening. So that's why there
was the fear that with the provision that there's
not a hearing before somebody is basically removed
from a residence that it would fail. I mean,
that's the whole argument these days with regard
to immigration and the lack of a hearing and
due process there. These are two different things,
but that's the due process argument. And that's
what we were fearful of. That's interesting.
Why is it helpful to have a DV advocate in the
court process? I didn't handle the adult abuse
docket that long. I was a family court commissioner
and my orders have to be signed off by a judge
and that was always a cumbersome process and
so eventually the docket got transferred. But
for a long time I did the dockets and they were
at this point I think they were massive. I mean
I had a small courtroom and I can't remember
how it started out but they would be these really
big dockets and there'd be a lot of people crowded
in their petitioners and the defendants, which
is not a good way of doing it. I think eventually
there was a sign -in process, but I don't know
that we did that in the beginning. It was volatile.
We didn't have security at the courthouse yet.
We had sheriffs, but we didn't have, you know,
metal detectors or anything else like that. And
so one time I was doing the docket. That time
Eileen was an advocate, and she came up to the
bench and basically said, can I tell you something?
I said, okay, sure. She says, you see that guy
in that... cowboy duster you know those those
long raincoats that go to the floor she says
he's got a baseball bat under the coat. Oh my
goodness. And it all worked out. It all worked
out. I was able to bust for sheriff and they
escorted him out of there. He had a baseball
bat. What the hell was he going to do with that?
Right. And I'm telling you, that courtroom was
really small. Yeah. I mean, he would have taken
out not just whoever he was there for. It would
have been a lot of us too. I don't want to think
about people who are probably bringing guns in
then too, but I remember that. As a commissioner
on the bench talking about like in the adult
abuse doc itself, you're responsible. for not
just the case that's going on, but you have all
these other petitioners and respondents because
it was their large dockets in the courtroom.
So you were not able to have your hands on everything
that was going on because it just was so much.
And that's kind of where the advocates came in
as we were kind of able to talk with petitioners
if there wasn't served cases. Unfortunately,
it's hard to get service and that's part of the
whole thing about due process that they have
service. Now the order protection can be extended
until you get service, but some of these never
got service and that was a problem. So having
an advocate there was not just for those people
on the docket, but it did help manage the docket.
And they were, they were just massive. I used
to have all day dockets in the morning and in
the afternoon. And I don't know what the numbers
are now, but they're a lot. Now that I'm retired,
I don't see it a monthly thing, but thousands
and thousands of cases are filed a year in Jackson
County. I don't know what they are across the
state. Now, not all of them. up in orders in
some cases get dismissed because there was never
service or anything else like that but now some
of these orders of protection can be extended
for years and years they were used to be six
months which at that time was like oh my god
a six -month thing and then it got extended to
a year and now I think there are lifetime orders
which is mind -blowing to me obviously there's
been a whole evolution since 1980 with regard
to their state's steel ideas from each other
in terms of legislation and everything else like
that. Some things I think were just unique to
Missouri, but I know other things where this
worked in so -and -so. Why aren't we thinking
this? In these days, I have to believe that doing
anything in our legislature to change anything
or to move anything is incredibly difficult these
days. So I don't know that we could get something
through the legislature these days only because
of such a gridlock now. You did the order protection
docket, and then you've done divorces? I did
dissolutions of marriage custody, paternity,
juvenile cases, family law. Just the family law
DACA because I was a family court commissioner
and that's my assignment. And you also led the
Independence Coordinator Community Council for
I don't know how many years, a long time. About
20 years, which was made up of law enforcement,
misnouns advocates, children's division, the
school district, probation and parole, prosecutors,
judges were come together and talk about what
we're seeing as trends or gaps in systems. You've
successfully led that for 20 years. I have a
story way before there was ever the coordinated
community council and when Sue else was head
of Hope house many many years ago and she and
I I think somebody else met with the then police
chief in Blue Springs and this is many many many
years ago and he said well I really don't know
why you're here because we don't have domestic
violence in Blue Springs okay I wonder what chief
would think about that today oh you're right
right because the chief from Blue Springs now
is extremely supportive and I know And that's
the thing about the coordinated community council.
And there are many of these all over the country.
But the fact that I do this, but I'm in my small
little cubby hole and somebody does this, frankly,
we would talk about trends. We would talk about
this. Sometimes I would find out things that
I thought, wow, why is that going on? And maybe
if I could say something to somebody, maybe it
got fixed or do you know about this or anything
else like that? Because we all are in our own
lane sort of, and that is the value. of having
something like that. And now I hope it goes on.
And that continues because I think now more than
ever, there needs to be involvement. And I would
hope that our new prosecutor might be persuaded
to come to a meeting or two. Yes. Yes, Melissa
Johnson has been actually to a couple meetings.
And a couple of our events as well. Yeah. So
she seems to be, I like her motto, change your
life or we'll change it for you. Let's go. Okay.
Yeah. But I think you're right. Your point on
the Cournot Community Council, right? Everyone
was so siloed. This domestic violence isn't just
Hope House's problem or the police problem or
the court problem. Getting everybody at the table
really opened up not only avenues for conversations,
but respect for each other's and the jobs that
were due, which I know I could see there was
like a huge shift. Different people have rotated
on that there was a different ownership of what
the Cournot Community Council meant. Wasn't just
another meeting to show up at. It was, right?
We sometimes had really hard conversations. Yeah,
we did. have some difficult conversations. We
did, but we also all walked out knowing that
we respected each other and sometimes hard conversations
is where we grow. But things like somebody have
a better understanding because on and off there
have been participants from the children's division
and maybe those cases up in juvenile court maybe
they don't but it's all part and parcel good
for the police to hear something about because
we all think this is how the police work this
is how a caseworker works and during the pandemic
times were so difficult. Oh yeah. We didn't meet
for I don't remember probably a year probably
but still to get back into that and to because
my opinion is that the pandemic changed so many
things and so many attitudes to maybe not for
the better it was a way for each of us to hear
a different perspective, which you don't see.
I wouldn't want to be a police officer. I mean,
that's an incredibly difficult job on anything
these days, and there's clearly an uptick in
domestic violence right now. I'm not in the game
anymore, technically, just from what I read in
terms of the murders and the relationship of
DV2, the uptick in violence, too. For me, personally,
there were just too many children involved in
stories that you just read. in the paper and
when I was on the bench and had access to things,
it was like, wow. And so the question is, what
Hope House does in terms of being a place of
refuge, which is literally what it started out
as, and now it has so many supporting programs,
and there are other things, but I think we all
know it will never be enough. You're right. Yeah,
it'll never be enough. And I think that, again,
just listening to you talk makes me kind of think
back, like, over the years, how far we've come,
but yet there's still so much to do. Yes. Yeah.
So there's still a lot of work and grateful to
everything that experiences our experiences.
My concern these days is, as is everybody's funding,
money, that kind of thing. It was never enough,
and now it's just fundraising is difficult. Government
funding, who knows what is happening, or will
happen with that. I mean, what it took to get
VAWA passed in the 90s, and now, I'm sorry, there
are people in the government who act like there
is no violence against women. Like we've gone
back 30 years. Well, in many respects, obviously
we have, but that's a whole nother topic. So
talking about family law, about custody. Of course
we're talking about pre and post the statute.
How was custody determined and prior to our guardian
program, our supervised visitation here at Hope
House, how has that changed? Well there's been
a whole evolution of family law. I'm gonna be
Professor Rosen here for a little bit. I love
it. Before 1974 it was called divorce and custody
was best interest and there was frankly a presumption
that the woman was the better parent and mothers
had custody. and father's head visitation. And
then in 1974, 75, they passed what is the basis
of our family law. And it was the dissolution
of our jacket. So you didn't have to prove fault.
You didn't have to prove adultery. You didn't
have to prove this or that to get the divorce.
All you had to say is that the marriage is irretrievably
broken and cannot be preserved. But still there
was the woman got custody. The husband didn't,
we're not even talking about paternity cases.
That's a whole nother story. Then statutes changed.
and they talked about joint custody. And there's
been a long evolution with regard to that. But
specifically, I think it was 1998, they better
define joint custody and joint legal custody.
And the theory is that, and this shouldn't just
be a legal theory, parents should work together.
So best interests started to be defined as these
eight factors. And one of the eight factors is
whether or not there's been domestic violence.
And that wasn't in there before. And so now courts,
instead of just saying, easier than, oh I find
it to be in the child's best interest blank blank
blank blank blank. Now there is a full consideration
of all these factors and how parents are supposed
to communicate and DV being frankly one of the
reasons not to. People think that there's a provision
that it's 50 -50 custody. The statute talks about
it being equal. We've come a long way from alternating
weekends and things like that and better participation
but one of the ways you overcome that presumption
is a finding of domestic violence. So God loved
the legislature within the last 10 years, saw
that as a real basis for not doing those things.
And things became more clear with regard to visitation.
We don't call it visitation anymore. We call
it parenting time, if it's a joint custody arrangement.
But there are reasons to not have joint custody.
And that's where it's called visitation. And
that's where it might be supervised visitation,
which is where, thank God, the Guardian Program
comes in. Because before the Guardian Program,
program, you would just say it's supervised by
who, who would do it, that kind of thing. And
this Guardian program provides a neutral setting
for exchange. It provides, as it expanded over
the years, it provided counseling services, that
kind of thing. I always felt bad, though, when
people from Hope House unfortunately got dragged
into cases to testify about things. But the Guardian
program has provided this incredible service,
not just on custody cases, which can be in a
dissolution or can be in paternity but even short
-term orders under orders of protection and it's
a real resource because some of the worst things
you can do is to not have a relationship. Maybe
it has to be regulated or supervised but the
lack of the relationship is also a problem. I
used to see people at their worst. There are
some cases where maybe it just needs to be short
term, that the volatility and maybe things can
be done. A lot of these cases is permanent and
there are a couple of times where in essence
you almost gave the parental death penalty where
they have no contact, but obviously there had
been really terrible, terrible things that went
on. When we talk about domestic violence, I think
we interpret that as more physical abuse, but
there's emotion. abuse, and you can't really
order things dealing with that, but that's all
part and parcel of this. Kids who witness or,
God help us, unfortunately, subject to it. And
those cases tend to unfortunately end up in juvenile
court. But there was always a component, and
those were the worst of the worst. Thank God
for the Guardian Program. Again, about the Guardian
Program, the reason why it really came, like
you said, like who's going to do the visitation?
So oftentimes it would say, okay, so the custodial
parent will go do visitation at McDonald's. in
the play area. I don't think they intended that.
I know they didn't. When they put it in the play
area, they didn't think that was going to happen.
Yeah. Or, well yeah, my mother will supervise
it, but not great. Right. Or the parties will
coordinate with each other as to who will be
the supervisor. Excuse me, the reason that supervise
is because there's probably an order of protection.
We all do the best we can. There aren't a lot
of tools. There aren't a lot of resources. And
the Guardian Program became an amazing resource,
if only to be without them being there for a
couple of hours to visit just as a safe exchange
place because I mean you're right McDonald's
and Quick Trips right you know let's let's exchange
the kids there who knew right right you're in
a public place and so that was right that was
the best something won't happen in a public place
exactly oh my goodness who knew right exactly
which is which is really why we started looking
for that funding for the guardian program for
the supervised visitation and exchanges the whole
intent in the beginning was to keep everybody
safe But kind of what you just said is we saw
as time went on that those kids at the program
with the non -offending parent has that time
to be with the parent and just be a kid because
we didn't have any adult talking. We're not.
Nope. We're here to be a kid and that to see
the growth in those children from who first time
coming in would be terrified. They'd be sitting
on the police officer's lap. They've never seen
before before they'd be over with their dad or
their mom, whoever was the visiting parent. And
then now to see time go on. program yeah we want
to keep everybody safe because that's what we
wanted it really is expanded like I guess maybe
an aha moment my own eyes of wow there was a
lot more to this but that we just wanted everybody
safe in the beginning sounds like kind of like
with the adult abuse law to get the groundwork
of finding something to put in place and then
kind of it's changed over time and I don't know
that everybody who orders it knows about all
the services that get provided so it just turns
out to be a bonus I was in it I knew it I work
with Hope House it becomes a bonus Yeah, it really
is. It is. There's a lot of great things that
come from that. I am excited to talk about one
of the most prestigious awards that we give.
Barbara Potts was the first female mayor of Independence
and she's the one who started Hope House and
she called a meeting and off we went. So each
year we recognize somebody who has been a partner
with Hope House over the years and this year
it is Commissioner Rosen who will be getting
the Barbara Potts award at our gala in Oh, I
get so very excited to be able to do that. It's
a great honor and up to my retirement. I mean,
I received a number of awards and things like
that. This is almost penultimate, but it's also
feels like full circle. Yeah, absolutely. Way
before you came on board and there's still the
Jackson County. It divides up the filing fees
on cases among the shelters. So we had to go
and visit each shelter. Hope House was this ramshackle
building and it was put together on a shoestring.
to see where things have come. The Adult Abuse
Act was in place, but there weren't places for
women to go and with their children. And now
people are dealing with issues of the pets and
everything like that, just the progression of
that. So to think that there have been a number
of important people who have done a lot of things.
But when Eileen told me I was getting this, I'm
usually not stumped for words, but I think my
mouth was open. It's an honor, but yeah, it feels
full circle. And you're very modest at that out
there as well when you talk about abuse law and
the case you argued and you didn't do this alone
and no you're right you didn't do it alone but
you were a trailblazer to make it happen in your
piece just as Barbara Potts she was a trailblazer
to this happen you know hope house happened that
you're a perfect fit for that award well I'm
honored in the Jewish faith we talk about Tikim
Olo which means to repair the world and so if
we all can do that in a little space then that's
what we're charged with doing Commissioner Rosen
thank you so much for coming on today it's just
been an honor been an honor thank you Thanks
so much.