Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman Archives

Legislative effort to crack down on Missouri boarding schools after mounting claims of abuse and neglect

February 11, 2021 By Alisa Nelson

Missouri and South Carolina are the only states in the nation that do not regulate faith-based boarding schools for youth. The secret is out and several of these schools have packed up and moved to Missouri to carry on their business of alleged neglect as well as sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of students.

Colton Schrag (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

After an investigation by The Kansas City Star, the accusations have caught the attention of two state lawmakers. Representatives Rudy Veit, R-Wardsville, and Keri Ingle, D-Lee’s Summit, have filed legislation that could keep tabs on youth residential homes, including faith-based ones.

The allegations have even made their way to Dateline NBC. The television show will air a segment tonight at 9 p.m. CST about the legislative effort.

During a House committee hearing Wednesday about the bills, former students from across the country talked about getting beaten and being starved. Some said they were restrained for hours and others said they were put in isolation for days or even months. They recounted some students getting forced to eat their own vomit.

Colton Schrag says he was physically abused and barely fed while living at Agape Boarding School in southwest Missouri’s Stockton.

“I don’t know how a kid has not died in your state in these schools that exist because I can list three schools – Masters Ranch, Legacy Boys Academy, Agape Boarding School, Circle of Hope – where I was abused by all four of those staff members that worked at Agape and eventually left and started their own school here,” he says. “In the state of Missouri at Agape Boarding School, there is 165 students that woke up an hour ago that are forced to stand on the wall, eat cereal while other kids are eating pancakes, they’re forced to physical workouts until they puke. They may even be getting restrained as we speak. The restraints at Agape Boarding School result in kids getting picked up over the head and slammed into walls. I’ve seen kids put through walls. I’ve been put through a wall. Kids are getting slammed on tile, concrete, and asphalt.”

Allen Knoll (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

Allen Knoll also attended Agape from ages 13 to 15.

“I was that boy standing on the wall. I was that boy restrained for two months straight – every single day. That was me because sometimes I didn’t want to go to church,” he says. “This cannot be the end – this can be the start. I am adamantly opposed to regulating religious programs and I really do believe strongly that they should have a separation of state and church. But I also believe in the civil rights of these children. I do want to say that the abuse and the trauma that I went through had a tremendous impact on my life. I made terrible, poor decisions. I suffered from depression, anxiety. I still suffer from those things. I have learned to deal with them. Through all the things of not learning how to live properly and being forced and beaten in these programs, I didn’t make the best choices. This state failed me. The state of Mississippi failed me. I’m still here today. I’m being that voice. Let’s not let somebody else come up here in ten years and have to say, ‘Why did you fail me.’”

Emily Adams says she had attended the Bethesda Home for Girls in the state of Mississippi for about 17 months.

Emily Adams (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

“My abusers were closed down a year after I left,” she says. “The Bethesda Home for Girls was raided by the FBI and finally shut down. Guess where they came y’all? They came here. They opened up Mountain Park in Patterson. So can you please, please, please help the kids now. No more survivors. No more, please.”

Amanda O’Brien says her parents opened the Circle of Hope Girls Ranch in southwest Missouri’s Humansville. She says she was forced to restrain her friends for hours and some girls did not leave after they became adults.

“They were told if you left, the people in the town would either shoot you for being on their property because of the law in Missouri, shoot first ask questions later, or they were told that animals would get them, or they were told that they would just be prostitutes,” says O’Brien.

She recalls one girl with a mental disability was there for 13 years. The victim left last year – at the age of 30.

O’Brien was kicked out when she was seventeen years old.

Shelva Thomas-Jackson says she paid $42,000 for her son to attend Masters Ranch Christian Academy in southern Missouri’s Couch.

“Every day, I fight for him not to give up because I refuse for him to be a statistic and let David Bosley and Masters Ranch or any other of these places get away with hurting kids. I have been hurt and know what it’s like to be sexually abused and be hurt by people you trust. Hurt people hurt people,” she says. “And if you don’t stop it, if nothing changes, nothing is ever going to change and you are going to have recidivism everywhere. Do something, please!”

These schools can be hard to find because they are often located in the middle of nowhere. Under the legislation, they must notify the state of their existence, and provide medical records for all residents. It would require background checks for all employees and volunteers. The schools would have to undergo certain safety inspections.

Reps. Rudy Viet and Keri Ingle (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

“There’s not one thing we’re asking them to do that a good business person would not do,” says Representative Viet. “I don’t care if you are a religious facility or not – you would do these things. So right now, we are the go-to place if you want to run a facility, unregulated, and do unreligious type activity.”

In cases of suspected abuse or neglect or failure to comply with regulations, the state could request an injunction or restraining order to stop operations or remove children from the site. The bills would not allow the state to go in and mess with any religious curriculum the schools might offer.

“We are both strong proponents of faith and faith has the power to change people. But faith can’t be used as an excuse to abuse and neglect children. They were absolutely neglected and abused in every way. There was no one looking out for them,” says Representative Ingle. “Oftentimes, they would run away. When they engaged with law enforcement, law enforcement would take them back to facilities where facilitators would say, ‘Well, these children are liars. This didn’t really happen. They are bad kids.’ I’m here to tell you in my professional experience that when you label a kid as troubled or bad, people tend to not believe them, which makes them even more likely to be victimized. The state has absolutely zero way of knowing these facilities are in existence. I could have one of these facilities in my basement with unlimited children right now with zero regulation from the state – at all. We don’t know about the existence of these facilities until unfortunately something bad happens.”

Ingle has a long history in the child welfare system.

Jessica Seitz with Missouri KidsFirst, a state network of child advocacy centers, says the legislation is long overdue.

“This legislation would help us know where these facilities are, be able to check on kids, and if necessary, shut them down. We’ve got to protect children and ensure our state is not a hospitable place for predators,” Seitz says.

Kelly Schultz, director of the Missouri Office of Child Advocate, says calls the legislation “notification”, not licensure.

“This is state versus people hurting kids and giving us the bare minimum of what we need to do to protect children in the state of Missouri,” she says. “I read cases all day long. I talk about child abuse, neglect, and fatalities all day long. I’m usually not the butterfly when I come in and testify. I’m not warm and fuzzy in this committee. It turns my stomach to see what I read and I think the only thing that turns my stomach even more is somebody doing this in the name of God because not only do we have trauma and abuse and neglect, but that threatens to separate a child from God for eternity.”

Rep. Brenda Shields, R-St. Joseph, questioned if background checks on some of these operators would have yielded any criminal history.

“It is also a check of the Family Care Safety Registry. One of the places that was specifically stated today and has been reported in the press by The Kansas City Star, the individual had four preponderance of evidence findings, which would have placed them on the Family Care Safety Registry. So, that would have been caught,” says Schultz.

Emily van Schenkhof, executive director at Missouri Children’s Trust Fund, says the hearing was probably one of the most painful hearings she has listened to.

“The stories today have just broken my heart and have left me feeling embarrassed and ashamed of our state that we did not correct these problems much earlier. It also makes me feel embarrassment and shame that I did not know that these issues were going on as a child advocate,” she says. “As someone who has done my job as long as I have, I feel like I should have known that this was occurring and that I should have asked you all to fix these problems many years ago. I have a great deal of sadness in my heart right now because this is egregious that this has gone on this long and I echo just the sympathies of everyone that, for the folks in this audience, for what they went through, and for the failure of our state.”

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, who chairs the House Children and Families Committee, questioned where the breakdown is happening after a call has been made to the Missouri Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline.

“I am just deeply upset that not only the unknown cases but the known cases were not acted upon,” she says. “When you have failure after failure about actually reported cases, and you have dedicated your life to doing this work has missed it, and I who care deeply about these issues has missed it.”

“In my work, what I really know and what I have seen over and over again is that there are bad actors and predators out there and there are evil people in this world. They want access to our children and it is our job as advocates and as lawmakers to put up really strong barriers between bad actors and evil doers,” says Van Schenkhof. “We want to make it as hard as possible to get to our children because we do know that the harder you make it for people to get to kids, the less likely abuse is to occur. What we have done with the laws that we have right now is we have basically a wire cutter. We’ve taken out the wire cutter and we have cut a giant chink in the fence that protects our kids. We have let evil doers and wrong doers come through this fence and hurt our kids. It is an invitation to predators. For far too long, we have silenced and discounted and ignored the voices of survivors and the voices of children. It is my deep hope that we have the courage to hear the people who came before me today and to make this change that absolutely I believe we are now compelled to make.”

Coleman, R-Arnold, believes if state law was followed appropriately, the children should have been protected.

“Because a child is abused by a person and we had credible accusations against individuals and we didn’t act. Let’s say we pass this and the governor signs it, what prevents failures in this system,” Coleman asks.

Van Schenkhof says no system is perfect.

“I think this bill would make a tremendous difference because we would have these places identified,” she says. “I’m not sure that I agree with you that this wouldn’t be enough. We have become a beacon for these homes. Just by putting up these barriers and putting these basic regulations in place, we will be less attractive for places to come here. I think that in of itself is a big change. I do think that other states that have done this have protected – they have healed that hole in the fence. There are lots of cases of child abuse that are never prosecuted, where the case goes from law enforcement to the prosecutor and the prosecutor decides not to take the case forward. I have seen egregious, egregious cases of child sexual abuse that prosecutors decide not to take to trial.”

Caitlin Whaley, of the Missouri Department of Social Services, says there is no ability on the Children’s Division part to force the operator to show a child who has allegedly been abused.

“That’s been a pain point for a long time. Even if we are able to see a child, there are standards that we have to meet to make findings,” says Whaley. “If you have children who are fearful that they’re going to be sent back to these facilities, you see a lot of instances where children might recant their stories. Even if they don’t recant, if we don’t have any physical evidence, it’s very difficult to oftentimes substantiate physical and sexual abuse findings if disclosures are not made immediately. And if you can’t see kids, you also can’t collect physical evidence. Even if you make a finding, there is no repercussions. There are a lot of systemic breakdowns happening that are cumulatively resulting in children being abused.”

Representative Dotty Bailey, R-Eureka, says abuse is abuse.

“I may not be able to see the hotline numbers, but I can certainly subpoena them through the House Speaker’s office. Here’s my problem, you’re going to push it back on the Legislature – it’s our fault. I’m calling you out on that. If you knew this was going on, somebody from your department should have come to one of legislators or senators and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got a problem we need to investigate.’ Not only is our job writing laws but it’s also investigating. I’m sitting up here a little steamed because I’m realizing the state has known about this but it takes The Kansas City Star to bring it to our attention. And now, it’s the Legislature’s fault because we haven’t changed the law. Bull! You all knew, and you never came to anybody. This has gone on I don’t know how many years. We will get the law changed but I will try for a subpoena and get that information. I’m sick of the departments in this state saying, ‘Sorry, we can’t be held accountable’. Just, ridiculous. And the egregious things that are happening to these people, somebody needs to be accountable for it. Yeah, it’s egg on our face because we haven’t changed the law. If you all knew about this and didn’t come to any of us – there’s 163 in the House and thirty-something in the Senate, God knows you could find somebody like me that will dig and dig and get every subpoena I need to find out what’s going on.”

The committee has not yet voted on the bills. Click here to view House Bill 560 and click here to view House Bill 557.

State House committee quickly passes measure meant to change legislative redistricting efforts

May 1, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

A Missouri House committee has voted 9-4 along party lines in favor of a proposed resolution designed to change the controversial Clean Missouri ballot measure. Voters passed Clean Missouri in 2018.

Missouri House General Laws Committee hearing

A main point of contention when it comes to Clean Missouri is the legislative redistricting process. Many Republicans have contended that redrawing of the districts will work in favor of Democrats. Democrats have dismissed that assertion.

The plan would let a bipartisan commission redraw legislative districts, instead of a nonpartisan demographer. It would also ban lobbyist gifts, instead of Clean Missouri’s $5 limit, and put a $2,000 cap on Senate candidate political donations, instead of the current $2,500.

The House General Laws Committee held a public hearing Thursday about the proposal. Representative Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, pointed out the hearing had few people in attendance.

“Why would that be? Well because they are under a stay-at-home order where they are advised not to be here taking part in a process ironically for a bill that is to undue a voter-driven initiative about transparency,” said Merideth.

Committee Chairman Dean Plocher, R-St. Louis, fired back by saying the building is still open during the statewide shutdown.

Jon Carpenter questioned why the legislation is a priority during a worldwide pandemic that has cost many lives and many people their jobs.

“Republicans and Democrats vehemently disagree on it,” he said. “I just feel like we could spend our time on things we can agree on to address the crisis and this is going to divide us at a time where we need to be united.”

Bill sponsor, State Senator Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, said he’s concerned Clean Missouri’s redistricting process would hurt communities.

“My biggest concern is that we will break up those voices and then Gladstone may be represented by three people and therefore represented by nobody,” said Hegeman.

Representative Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, says Hegeman’s resolution would use citizenship instead of total population in the redistricting process – leaving out some voices.

Another point of contention is whether Hegeman’s proposal would undo the will of voters.

“It is the will of the people. This is a constitutional amendment that has to go to a vote of the people,” said Hegeman. “That is equally respecting the vote of the people. I really think that people ought to have a chance to look at it once again.”

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, agreed with Hegeman.

“I don’t think that asking them to make a change, if they are interested in doing so, or to not make a change from what they just enacted, is in any way disrespectful,” said Coleman.

Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said Clean Missouri has not been given a chance to see how the redistricting process will unfold.

“They already told us what they wanted – 57% of your people did,” said Quade. “Why do we not see if they were right? Why do we not trust them and what they asked us to do and see if it works before we come back and say ‘No you were wrong.’ What I’m really struggling with is the fact that we’re asking them again ‘Are you sure?’ when we haven’t even seen it. So my question for you, Senator – 57% of your people said yes. Have 57% of your people contacted you and said oops?”

Hegeman said Clean Missouri would lead to “greater gerrymandering” and he calls it a “partisan train wreck”.

Legislative committees will often wait a week before making a decision on a proposal but lawmakers are up against the clock. With two weeks left to go in the regular session, the measure heads to another House committee for consideration. The Missouri Republican Party has made passage of SJR38 a top priority this session.

Missouri GOP legislator wants to reduce federal safety net program paperwork

March 2, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The state Legislature is being asked to reduce the amount of paperwork that Missourians must fill out to enroll or renew in federal safety net programs. Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from the St. Louis suburb of Arnold, has filed a bipartisan bill in response to challenging herself to see what it was like to fill out the application.

Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

“I gave up. It was repetitive. It was frustrating,” she says. “There was a lot of legalese. I decided that if as a lawyer and as a state Representative I had a hard time navigating to receive these benefits, then how much more would a family who’s facing a crisis and is really needing to be a recipient of these services, how would they be able to navigate them.”

Depending on which program you’re trying to sign up for, including food stamps, WIC, Medicaid or temporary assistance, the state’s current application is as long as 63 pages. She doesn’t have a magic number of pages she thinks the application should be. Her goal is ultimately to be more user friendly.

“All of those applications should be concise and non-duplicative and all of the legalese should be put onto a separate piece of paper so that’s it’s just really easy to navigate and found online,” says Coleman. “So the idea is that, you know, it’s just a good government kind of clean up thing. It’s not changing who is eligible. It’s not changing should we have these programs. But we do have them and so we need to make it accessible to people.”

Coleman says the paperwork is not as cohesive as it could be. Every time there’s a new federal regulation, the paperwork gets longer.

“The questions aren’t even really complicated,” says Coleman. “It’s just that the directions can be complicated. And so it can be stated more simply. I mean this is one of those things that it’s easier for everybody if we do it this way. It’s going to make it easier for state employees to get the necessary information.”

The Missouri House General Laws Committee voted unanimously in favor of her bipartisan. The legislation, House Bill 1960, is awaiting consideration by the House Rules Committee.

State urges Missouri parents who lost Medicaid to re-apply kids for coverage

February 21, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The state wants Missouri parents who have had their Medicaid coverage cancelled to fill out an application and see if their kids still qualify. The request applies to those who have lost coverage since August 2018.

Representative David Wood (courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

State Representative David Wood, R-Versailles, says about 120,000 Missourians are no longer getting Medicaid due to a federal healthcare law change and an improving economy. But he says about 90,000 of those are children who are probably still eligible for coverage through the Children’s Health Insurance Program commonly called CHIP.

“Now did the Department (of Social Services) do a very good job of explaining that when they gave the cancellation of their coverage? Probably not. We could’ve done better,” says Wood, who heads a House budget committee involving social services. “Our enrollment processes could be easier. Our phone center could do a better job of answering calls, but we’re not in the business of taking off people that are covered just trying to save money. We want to cover everybody that qualifies.”

Missouri’s Medicaid budget is about $10 billion, accounting for more than one-third of the state’s $30 billion operating budget.

Wood says the Department of Social Services’ issues should not be viewed as a big conspiracy.

“It’s not that the Governor Nixon administration put on a whole bunch of kids because they could or the Governor Parson administration has taken them off just to try and save money. The reality is we had a lot of applications come in. We didn’t do a good job of verifying the incomes. We are now verifying the incomes and doing a better job so those people are dropping off the rolls. But if they’d re-apply under a different category, some of them would still be covered.”

Missourians can re-apply online, by calling the state Department of Social Services, or by going to an office in your county.

During a press conference this week, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, says she wants Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, to freeze cancellations of Medicaid coverage until she says the matter is cleared up.

“After a year of work on this issue and with a bipartisan desire for action, we have the chance during the coming weeks to do right by Missouri’s children and I hope the Republican leadership will make this a priority,” says Quade. “Pausing this disenrollment is vital to making sure that we can figure out exactly what is going on. We need to be doing everything in our power to make sure that those kids who qualify have healthcare coverage.”

Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood, says the state should automatically re-enroll the kids affected.

“Why we are asking the parents to pick up for our mistake doesn’t make sense to me. We know that 300 kids were put back on without any hesitation and yet the overall number is still down,” she says. “If we know children who’ve been kick off are being put on almost automatically once there’s a process, then why are the numbers still going down? I think more children have been kicked off of healthcare than we realize.”

Missourinet asked Parson’s office for a response yesterday, but one was not given by deadline time.

Wood says Missouri’s process to enroll should be simplified. The state’s public assistance application is 63 pages – making it the second longest in the country.

A company is reviewing Missouri’s enrollment measures and releasing its results to the state this month. Wood says then the work will begin to make changes.

Meanwhile, State Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, is proposing to reduce the enrollment paperwork to one page. A House committee unanimously passed her bill this week. House Bill 1960 heads to another committee for consideration.

View state data about the number of Missourians receiving public assistance.

Domestic union instead of marriage? Missouri bill would reduce the nuptial definition

February 17, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

State Representative Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles, wants to change the legal definition of marriage to civil unions. During a Missouri House General Laws Committee hearing today about Schnelting’s bill, he says he wants to replace marriage licenses with contracts of domestic unions – sparking opposition by some traditional marriage supporters and the gay rights community.

Capitol Rotunda (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

The interpretation and intent of House Bill 2173 varies greatly from person to person and lawmaker to lawmaker. Arguments ranged from what the bill would do to marriages involving children and adoption rights, gay couples, immigration status, federal benefits, and how a civil union would be recognized in other states for married couples moving to and from Missouri.

Schnelting, a licensed minister and former pastor, says marriage is not the government’s business and his goal is to treat everyone equally.

“Whether you’re religious, whether you’re nonreligious,” he says. “Whether you’re straight, whether you’re a member of the LGBT community, this is about restoring the government to its proper role. If I don’t need a license for my Second Amendment rights, I certainly do not need the government’s permission or a license to marry.”

Schnelting says under his nearly 400-page bill, he thinks society would still call a marriage a marriage.

“First and foremost, this bill does not abolish marriage,” he says. “Our law states that marriage law is considered in law as a civil contract – from the standpoint of the state nothing more nothing less. That’s still in place. It doesn’t make it any less of a marriage. It’s just reducing it, stripping it down to it’s most basic legal definition.”

He says when government is allowed to intrude into private matters, it is usually contentious.

“Because then you have one section of America pitting itself against another,” he says.

Representative Wes Rogers, D-Kansas City, says the bill would reduce marriage to a couple being “civically in love” and indicates the intent of the measure has to do with gay marriage.

“Our marriage certificate says marriage and it doesn’t matter what you think and it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. If I was gay and wanted to marry a man, and I have a certificate that says marriage, I’m having a hard time understanding why it’s your business,” he says.

Schnelting agrees that it’s not the government’s business.

“This 382-pages, this is what happens when we allow government to get out of control,” he says.

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, says she opposes the legislation out of potential unintended consequences of children’s rights.

Representative Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, calls the legislation divisive, hurtful to LGBT individuals, and would be going backwards.

“I want to make sure that love can be love and marriage can be marriage and that we’re not trying to undue something that the U.S. Supreme Court said is the right thing to do,” says McCreery. “Since gay marriage became the law of the land, my marriage has not been impacted at all. I don’t think anybody in this room can raise their hand and honestly say that since gay marriage was made legal that their marriages have deteriorated. I feel like this bill is kind of a solution looking for a problem.”

According to Schnelting, the proposal would not attack government benefits for couples with a marriage license or a civil union contract. If so, he says he would change the bill to ensure those benefits would work the same way as they do now. Speaking on behalf of LGBT organization PROMO, Washington University Law Professor Denise Lieberman disagrees with Schnelting’s statement and says more than 1,000 federal benefits are attached to the institution of legal marriage.

“Really important stuff right, like social security, like Veterans benefits, like surviving spousal benefits, immigration status, Medicare,” she says.

Lieberman goes on to say she thinks the legislation is unconstitutional and federal law, which recognizes a marriage as a marriage, will trump state law.

Karl and Lisa Weslin of southwest Missouri’s Springfield oppose the bill and fear it would put their retirement years in jeopardy, including their social security, insurances, and medical and survivor benefits. Lisa Weslin says marriage is the bedrock of society.

“If the state of Missouri were to undermine our marriage, we have five daughters who are married and thirteen grandchildren, for those we hope to set an example of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage itself represents a spiritual and mystical union that is imbued with meaning much deeper and more profound than a domestic union,” she says.

The committee has not yet voted on the bill.