Section 589.664 places certain limitations on the dissemination of a participants actual address, including the following:
1. If an individual is a participant in the address confidentiality program under section 589.663, no person or entity shall be compelled to disclose the participants actual address during the discovery phase of or during a proceeding before a court or other tribunal unless the court or tribunal first finds, on the record, that:
(1) There is a reasonable belief that the address is needed to obtain information or evidence without which the investigation, prosecution, or litigation cannot proceed; and
(2) There is no other practicable way of obtaining the information or evidence.
2. The court shall first provide the program participant and the secretary of state notice that address disclosure is sought.
* * *
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law to the contrary, no court shall order an individual who has had his or her application to the program accepted by the secretary to disclose his or her actual address or the location of his or residence without giving the secretary proper notice. The secretary shall have the right to intervene in any civil proceeding in which a court is considering ordering a participant to disclose his or her actual address.
5. Disclosure of a participants actual address under this section shall be limited under the terms of the order to ensure that the disclosure and dissemination of the actual address will be no greater than necessary for the purposes of the investigation, prosecution, or litigation.
§ 589.664.1, .2, .4, & .5. We are unaware of any written decisions in Missouri addressing the meaning or application of these provisions. It is clear, however, that the circuit court here did not make any findings about the need for this information to be disclosed, nor did it notify the Secretary that disclosure would be sought.
The Legislature itself has underscored the importance it attaches to not revealing the actual address of a Safe at Home participant in the context of marital dissolution by amending section 452.375 in 2018 (eff. Aug. 28, 2018) to protect any actual address information appearing in records and information pertaining to a minor child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, and school records. § 452.375.12. A new sentence in subsection 12 states, A court shall order that the reports and records made available under this subsection not include the address of the parent with custody if the parent with custody is a participant in the address confidentiality program under section 589.663. § 452.375.12. Similarly, two new sections have been added to the statute addressing the relocation of a child by a parent in the dissolution of marriage chapter. Section 452.377 now states:
3. If a party seeking to relocate a child is a participant in the address confidentiality program under section 589.663, such party shall not be required to provide the information in subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of this section, but may be required to submit such information under seal to the court for in camera review. Prior to disclosure of this information, a court shall comply with the provisions of section 589.664.
* * *
13. A participant in the address confidentiality program under section 589.663 shall not be required to provide a requesting party with the specific physical or mailing address of the childs proposed relocation destination, but in the event of an objection by a requesting party, a participant may be required to submit such information under seal for the court for in camera review. Prior to disclosure of this information, a court shall comply with the provisions of section 589.664.
§ 452.377.3 & .13.
We believe that the Safe at Home statute leaves no room for a circuit court to find whether a participant has been abused or is fearful of abuse before deciding whether to shield his or her actual address from disclosure. This information is absolutely shielded from disclosure, with limited exceptions, none of which apply here. Mr. Hannah argues that (1) the trial court did not order the disclosure of Ms. Hannahs address and did not consider doing so, thus the court was not required to notify the Secretary; (2) neither Ms. Hannah nor the Secretary introduced evidence about potential harm to her and the minor childs safety when the motion to reconsider was argued; (3) because the court did not require the disclosure of Ms. Hannahs address, it was not required to make findings as to whether the address was needed; (4) no evidence was introduced to show that the child was part of the program; and (5) Mr. Hannah has a right to know where his child lives.
To the extent Mr. Hannah contends that Ms. Hannahs physical address will not be disclosed, his argument is disingenuous. She lives with and has joint legal and physical custody of the child, so revealing the childs physical address will reveal her address. The circuit court was required to notify the Secretary under the statute. § 589.664. Further, the circuit court made no finding that disclosure of Ms. Hannahs address was needed to obtain information or evidence without which the investigation, prosecution, or litigation cannot proceed, and we question whether any such finding could be made, given that the court was entering a final dissolution decree. While the law did not require shielding the address of a participants child in January 2018 when the judgment issued, it does now, and we find no reason to affirm a judgment that requires disclosure of that address. Further, while Ms. Hannah did not testify that the child was a program participant, the Secretary was prepared to offer proof during the hearing on its motions to intervene and to reconsider that both had applied to participate in the Safe at Home program.
Accordingly, this point is granted and the case is remanded for the circuit court to issue a new judgment that does not in any way require the disclosure of the actual, physical residence of Ms. Hannah or the minor child when she is with Ms. Hannah. This applies as well to the provisions on relocation, transportation, and exchanges of the child.
Conclusion
Because the circuit court erred in interpreting the Safe at Home statute, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Mark D. Pfeiffer, J. concur.
APPENDIX A
Mr. Hannahs counsel, Ms. Schwappach, asked the question giving rise to the objection. Ms. Hannahs counsel was Ms. Auriemma.
Q. Lets talk about you[r] proposed parenting plan whats your - where are you living right now? Whats your physical home address? Not your P.O. Box.
MS. AURIEMMA: Im going to object.
THE COURT: On what basis?
MS. AURIEMMA: My client has already testified that shes with the Safe at Home, and that her legal residence is the P.O. Box.
MS. SCHWAPPACH: Judge, Im not asking for a P.O. Box. Im asking for where she physically is with the child. Safe at Home might allow for her not to give out her address - in certain circumstances to use that as her address. That doesnt mean she cant say what her address is. Nothings preventing her -
MS. AURIEMMA: My client has testified that she feels unsafe giving dad the address. Shes gone through the proper procedures to apply and adhere with Safe at Home. Giving the address to dad right now in open court would just diminish the whole process.
THE COURT: I understand what she feels. Okay? Do you have any legal basis, though, that would allow me to sustain your objection? One of the eight factors I have to consider is the childs home.
MS. AURIEMMA: May I take a break and talk with my client?
THE COURT: You can take a break. You can. I mean, if its going to be more than a couple minutes, ought to just break for lunch -
MS. AURIEMMA: No. Itll be a couple minutes and thats it.
THE COURT: Yeah, we can take a short break.
(A recess was taken.)
(Audio begins as followed:)
MS. AURIEMMA: Its our understanding, but I havent had a chance to look at it, but part of that statute says if a Court was to order her to give her address, shes supposed to be given 24-hours[] notice. I have not seen that statute. I dont know if it requires more time for me to look up -
THE COURT: Whats the number? You dont know the number?
MS. AURIEMMA: I dont know. That was my concern.
THE COURT: Okay. Well take a lunch break. Well see you all back here at 1:30.
MS. AURIEMMA: All right.
(A recess was taken.)
THE COURT: Please have a seat and make yourself comfortable. Maam, come on up, if you would. Before we left for lunch, there was a question posed and an objection made. And I have received some information, education and based upon, I will sustain the objection.
The Secretary claims that he learned about the forthcoming judgment only when Ms. Hannah reached out to the Secretary.
Mr. Hannah refers to his fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his child. This argument implicates a constitutional dimension that has been raised for the first time on appeal. He cites in this regard, Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), which addressed a custody ruling under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. Because Mr. Hannah did not raise a constitutional question at the earliest opportunity, he has waived it and we do not consider it further. Mo. Elec. Coop. v. Kander , 497 S.W.3d 905, 918 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).
As explained in the text, sections 589.663 and 589.664 do not permit a circuit court to order disclosure of a participants address based on the courts independent finding that the participant has not been abused or does not fear further abuse. In formulating an appropriate parenting plan, however, the court would be entitled to consider whether a parent had improperly sought to invoke the protections of the Safe at Home program to gain a tactical advantage in a dissolution proceeding.
In this regard, the transcript reveals the following exchange:
MR. WRIGHT : Well, we would like to intervene on forthcoming judgment on dissolution of marriage, specifically on the requirement on whether--which addresses should be disclosed at what time. The Respondent and her child are both participants in the Safe At Home program, and the requirement that--it seems to be indicated--
THE COURT : The child is participant?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Your Honor, and I do have an application that has the minor child (indiscernible). And so we would intervene on the (indiscernible) and ask that this Court to reconsider the (indiscernible) address.
THE COURT : Why dont we get back in chambers.
(Proceedings recessed at 9:06 a.m.)
THE COURT : Back on the record with 16CY-CV11257, Hannah v. Hannah. Go ahead and give me your entries once again, please.
MS. SCHWAPPACH : Emily Schwappach on behalf of Petitioner.
MS. AURIEMMA : Rebecca Auriemma on behalf of Respondent.
MR. WRIGHT : Adam Wright on behalf of intervenor, Missouri Secretary of State.
THE COURT : I have indicated by docket entry that the Secretary of States motion to intervene is granted. I understand that you all wish me to take up the Secretarys motion for reconsideration at this time, is that correct?
MS. SCHWAPPACH : Yes.
MS. AURIEMMA : Yes, Your Honor.
MR. WRIGHT : Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT : Anything in addition? Does the Secretary have anything in addition to the written motion that was filed?
MR. WRIGHT : No, Your Honor.
THE COURT : All right. I will show that motion denied.