|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
States that have no time limitation for the prosecution of most sexual offenses
against children:
- Alabama (violent crimes or sex offenses involving persons under 16);
- Alaska (most sexual offenses against children under 18);
- Delaware
- Kentucky (felonies);
- Maine (incest,
rape, or gross sexual assault of victim under 16);
- Nebraska
- Maryland;
- North Carolina;
- Rhode Island;
- South Carolina;
- Virginia (felonies);-CAN ONLY SUE INDIVIDUALS AND NOT EMPLOYERS
- West Virginia (felonies);
- Wyoming.
States that have no statute of limitations for prosecutions of the most
serious forms of sexual assault, regardless of the age of the victim.
- Florida
-Indiana
-Mississippi
-New Jersey
-New Mexico
-South Dakota
States that have
3 years from the age of majority (18) or three years from the date the victim realizes that they have suffered an injury or
illness caused by sexual abuse.
- Kansas
As of 1997, 28
states had adopted an extension of the time limitation based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects:
- Alaska;
- Arkansas;
- California;
- Florida;
- Illinois;
- Iowa;
- Kansas;
-
Maine;
- Massachusetts;
- Minnesota;
- Missouri;
- Montana;
- Nevada;
- New Hampshire;
-
New Jersey;
- New Mexico;
- North Carolina (time limit begins to run once bodily harm becomes apparent or ought
reasonably to have become apparent);
- Oklahoma;
- Oregon;
- Rhode Island;
- South Carolina;
- South
Dakota;
- Utah;
- Vermont;
- Virginia;
- Washington;
- Wisconsin (for incest cases); and
- Wyoming
|
|
|
Alabama |
There is no special statute of limitations. The Alabama Supreme Court has refused
to adopt a discovery rule or to apply Alabama's insanity tolling provision to repressed memory claims. Travis v. Ziter,
681 So. 2d 1348 (Ala. 1996) Claims must be brought within 2 years of the date
of the injury under Alabama Code § 6-2-38
Alaska
| Under AS 09.10.060, "a person may bring an action at any time for the following acts: (1) felony sexual
abuse of a minor; or
(2) felony sexual assault. There is therefore no statute of limitations
for felony sexual abuse. Under Chapter 41, first, second and third degree sexual assault or child abuse are classified as felonies.
In addition, there is a statutory discovery/realization statute. For acts of non-felonious sexual abuse, a victim
may bring suit within 3 years of majority or 3 years of discovery (specific statutory requirements for discovery) pursuant
to Alaska's minority and disability tolling (extension) statute, AS § 09.10.140. Discovery is defined as when "the plaintiff discovered or through use of
reasonable diligence should have discovered that the act caused the injury or condition."
Arizona | | Summary Arizona does not have a special statute of limitations
for childhood sexual abuse. It applies it statutory minority and disability tolling provisions to the general tort statute
of limitations. A victim has either: (1) 2 years from the date of the injury under the general tort statute of limitations,
Arizona Statutes § 12-542; (2) 2 years from reaching the age of minority under Arizona Statutes § 12-502; (3)
2 years from removal of a mental disability (i.e. unsound mind) under Arizona Statutes § 12-502 In
Doe v. Roe (Apr. 7, 1998), the Arizona Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of repressed memory and held that repressed
memory arising out of CSA may trigger the state's discovery rule and "unsound mind" exception, effectively extending
the Statute of Limitations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arkansas | Summary | Text Summary: Civil claims must be filed within 3 years of the discovery of childhood sexual abuse. The Arkansas scheme
is a "realization statute," meaning that 3-year period starts to run when the victim discovers that the injury
or condition is attributable to the childhood sexual abuse. "Child" means minor under age of 18. Text of the Statute: Ark. Code Ann. §16-56-130(a)
Notwithstanding any other statute of limitations or any other provision of law that can be construed to reduce the statutory
period set forth in this section, any civil action based on sexual abuse which occurred when the injured person was a minor,
but is not discovered until after the injured person reaches the age of majority, shall be brought within three (3) years
from the time of discovery of the sexual abuse by the injured party. Summary: Civil claims must be filed within 3 years of the discovery of childhood sexual abuse. The Arkansas scheme
is a "realization statute," meaning that 3-year period starts to run when the victim discovers that the injury
or condition is attributable to the childhood sexual abuse. "Child" means minor under age of 18. Text of the Statute: Ark. Code Ann. §16-56-130(a)
Notwithstanding any other statute of limitations or any other provision of law that can be construed to reduce the statutory
period set forth in this section, any civil action based on sexual abuse which occurred when the injured person was a minor,
but is not discovered until after the injured person reaches the age of majority, shall be brought within three (3) years
from the time of discovery of the sexual abuse by the injured party. (b)(1) A claim based on an
assertion of more than one (1) act of sexual abuse is not limited to the injured party's first discovery of the relationship
between any one (1) of those acts and the injury or condition, but may be based on the injured party's discovery of the
effect of the series of acts. (2) It is not necessary for the injured party to establish
which act in a series of acts of childhood sexual abuse caused the injury or condition that is the subject of the lawsuit.
(c) For the purposes of this section: (1) "Childhood
sexual abuse" means sexual abuse which occurred when the injured person was a minor; (2)
"Minor" means a person of less than eighteen (18) years of age; and (3) "Time
of discovery" means when the injured party discovers the effect of the injury or condition attributable to the childhood
sexual abuse. |
|
|
|
California (Revised Nov. 9, 2002) |
Ca. Civ. Proc. Code 340.1
Summary | Cases and Commentary | Text | ResourcesSummary: Civil claims must be filed within 8 years of the victim reaching the age of majority or "within three
years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring
after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.” An amendment enacted in July of 2002 provides
"actions may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday if the person or entity against whom the action
is commenced knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer,
representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps, and implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid future acts of
unlawful sexual conduct. The bill would revive a cause of action solely for those claims for a period of one year, except
as specified." Legislative Counsel's Digest (SB 1779, Burton). Summary: Civil claims must be filed within 8 years of the victim reaching the age of majority or "within three
years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring
after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.” An amendment enacted in July of 2002 provides
"actions may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday if the person or entity against whom the action
is commenced knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer,
representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps, and implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid future acts of
unlawful sexual conduct. The bill would revive a cause of action solely for those claims for a period of one year, except
as specified." Legislative Counsel's Digest (SB 1779, Burton). |
Colorado |
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-80-103.7
(2001)
Summary | Cases and Commentary
Text of Statute | Resources
Summary: Claims can be filed within 6 years of reaching the age of majority or 6 years of the removal of a disability
as defined by the statute. Subsequent court opinions have established that the Colorado
SOL is a "realization" statute; namely, that the 6-year period does not begin to run until the victim comes to a
realization that not only was he or she abused, but that he or she has become injured as a result of the abuse. A survivor
is disabled under the statute if he or she is unable to acknowledge the abuse or the injury. Damages are limited by statute to medical and counseling costs for claims brought more than 15 years after the age
of majority. |
Connecticut | | Conn. Gen. Stats. 52-577d No common law discovery provision, but the existing special statute allows action within 30 from the date
the victim reached their "age of majority." The age of majority was 21 up until September
30, 1972. The age of majority to 18 effective October 1, 1972. |
District of Columbia | | The
D.C. statute of limitations for personal injury actions provides that an action must be brought within three years "from
the time the right to maintain the action accrues." D.C. Code § 12-301 (1995). If the victim is a minor when the
injury occurs, he or she may bring the action within three years of his/her eighteenth birthday. D.C. Code § 12-302 (a)(1)
(1995). |
Delaware | Delaware Code & Law Materials Delaware does not have a special statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse cases. Under Delaware's
general personal injury SOL, any claims must be brought within 2 years from the date of the injury. 10 Delaware Code §
8119. If the abuse took place when the victim was a minor, suit must be filed within 2 years of reaching the age of 18 (i.e.,
before the victim's 20th birthday). Delaware has a general discovery rule for "inherently unknowable"
injuries, but the courts have applied the definition of "unknowable" very strictly and have not relaxed the rule
for sexual abuse cases. See, e.g, Warner v. University of Delaware, 1995 WL 656797 (Del. Super., Oct 02, 1995)
(NO. 94C-07-104); Garcia v. Nekarda, 1993 WL 54491 (Del. Super., Feb 19, 1993) (NO. C.A. 92C-06-008) |
Florida | Special Statute of Limitations for Abuse: Fla. Stat. Ann.§
95.11(7). "FOR INTENTIONAL TORTS BASED ON ABUSE.--An action founded on alleged abuse, as defined in s. 39.01, s. 415.102,
or s. 984.03, or incest, as defined in s. 826.04, may be commenced at any time within 7 years after the age of majority, or
within 4 years after the injured person leaves the dependency of the abuser, or within 4 years from the time of discovery
by the injured party of both the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the abuse, whichever occurs later."
Section 95.11(7) cannot be applied retroactively. It is applicable only to cases arising after April 8, 1992, the effective
date of the statute.
Delayed Discovery Doctrine: In addition to the statutory extensions,
Florida has a "delayed discovery" doctrine which generally provides that the statute of limitations does not begin
to run until the victim either knows or reasonably should know of the wrongful act giving rise to the cause of action. In
Herndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court held that the delayed discovery doctrine is applicable
to repressed memory or 'traumatic amnesia' cases, stating that the statute of limitations does not begin to run (accrue)
until the victim is aware that the abuse occurred. In reaching its conclusion, the Florida Supreme Court made a distinction
between "accrual" (a SOL beginning to run) and "tolling" (a SOL being suspended). Applying the concept
of accrual in Herndon, the Court was able to avoid the 7-year statute of repose (final deadline in which suit can be filed)
provided in Florida's tolling statute, Fla. Stat. §95.051. (Atty. Horace
N. Moore, Sr., of Gainesville, Florida represented the victim.)
|
Georgia | | Georgia's special statute of limitations for childhood sexual
abuse provides that victims may bring civil actions within 5 years of reaching their age of majority. O.C.G.A. §9-3-33.1 (2001) Disability Tolling. Georgia's general tolling statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-91, provides that
a disability tolls the applicable limitation during the period of the disability. The test for is whether the individual,
being of unsound mind, could not manage the ordinary affairs of his life." See, for example, Walker v. Brannan,
243 Ga. App. 235; 533 S.E.2d 129 (2000) (automobile accident case). It does not appear that the disability tolling provision
has been tested in a child sexual abuse case. |
Hawaii | | Hawaii does
not have a special statute of limitations applicable to childhood sexual abuse. The general limitations period for injuries
to the person is 2 years. H. S. § 657-7. Tolling. Hawaii has a minority,
insanity, and disability tolling statute which provides that actions can be brought within the applicable time allowed, i.e.
2 years, from the victim reaching the age of majority or from the removal of a disability. H. S. § 657-13. The disability,
however, must have been in existence at the time the legal injury was first sustained. H.S.§ 657-14 Extension
while criminal case is pending. If a criminal case has been prosecuted by authorities, the statute of limitations
is suspending during the time that case is pending in the criminal court system. H. S. § 657-23 Hawaii also
has a common law realization-discovery rule providing that claims may be filed within 2 years of the discovery
of the injury and the realization of the relationship between the injury and the abuse. In Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Hawaii 28,
924 P.2d 196 (1996), the Hawaii Supreme court applied the discovery rule to a childhood sexual abuse claim, stating: we
are persuaded by the reasoning of those courts that, having considered the application of either statutory or judicially created
discovery rules to claims of CSA [childhood sexual abuse], have determined that the issue of when a plaintiff discovered,
or reasonably should have discovered, that she or he was psychologically injured and that the injury was caused by CSA is
a question of fact for the jury.
|
|
|
|
States Move to Enact Laws Allowing the Death Penalty for Pedophiles:
A
Good Sign with Respect to Public Dedication to Protecting Children, But Potentially Not the Most Effective Way to Do So
By MARCI HAMILTON
---- Thursday, May. 31, 2007 As I have argued more than once, the
key is to abolish the statutes of limitation on childhood sexual abuse - both criminal and civil. Most states are moving in
a forward direction in this respect, in that they are at least extending the statutes of limitations on childhood sexual abuse,
with a few, like Alaska and Maine, abolishing them outright. This was the right decision: Surely the interests of the victims
and society as a whole are more valuable than the perpetrator's need to be free from concern about prosecution or litigation.
In this area, abolition will eventually happen, because it is the only just solution to an intractable social problem.
The question is just how quickly, and how many additional victims will suffer due to the delay. Because of the Supreme
Court's unfortunate 5-4 decision in Stogner v. California, no legislature can abolish the criminal statutes of limitations retroactively. Rather, they may only abolish criminal limitations
with respect to future cases. Importantly, however - because this restriction comes from the Constitution's Ex Post Facto
Clause, which only applies to criminal penalties -- the same is not true for civil statutes of limitations. In many states,
civil statutes of limitations many be abolished not only prospectively, but also retroactively. If a civil statute of limitations
is eliminated, even for a "window" of a year or so, the public learns more than it would ever know otherwise about
the identity of the dangerous child abusers in our communities. In 2003, California abolished the statute of limitations
on childhood sexual abuse claims. As a result, over 800 victims came forward, and at least 300 perpetrators were named, of
whom the public had previously been ignorant. Before then, those 300 perpetrators were comfortably relying on the statute
of limitations to keep their crimes secret - and likely preying on new victims, thanks to a cloak of anonymity. Luckily for
us, California had the foresight to pass a law that should be a model for the country. Additional Recent Proposals
to Abolish the Child Abuse Statute of Limitations Are A Welcome Development The grassroots movement to abolish
the statute of limitations in childhood sexual abuse cases is swelling, and it cannot be turned back. Over the past year,
legislative proposals to this effect have been made in numerous states, including Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.
Hearings will be held on such legislation in Washington, DC this Friday, June 1. The story of statutes of limitation
for childhood sexual abuse in the United States is one of incremental, but constant reform. It is not unusual for a given
state to have amended its sex abuse statutes of limitation as often as annually. The more we learn about how much we don't
know about the predators out there, the more legislators are persuaded that there must be more time for victims to not only
seek individual justice, but also bring this information to the courts and the public. Such reform should -- but doesn't
always -- pass the first time around. That is just the way the legislative process sometimes works, and fortunately, given
the fervor of those behind these reforms, they will be re-introduced in those states where they have not yet been enacted.
It is simply inevitable. Aiding abolition forces is the fact that their opposition has fast lost any moral high ground
it might have claimed- arguing in favor of those persons and institutions who actively cover up child abuse and protect abusers,
and trumpeting the "rights" of the perpetrators to rest secure in the knowledge that, after a certain amount of
time has passed, they will never be prosecuted. On the other side of the issue, it's important to remember that
this is an area in which victims' delay in coming forward is profoundly understandable. When a child suffers abuse, the
profound psychological effects last a lifetime. For a victim, coming forward typically means revisiting intense pain, confronting
misplaced but real feelings of shame, revealing a painful incident to their families (including their own children), and having
the courage to confront their abuser - even though he or she was typically a trusted adult, often an authority figure, and
sometimes was freighted with the intimidating religious authority a priest carries. No wonder it takes years. The only
effect such reforms have, is on the date the victim may go to court. They do not change the substantive law, nor the burdens
of proof borne by the defendants or victims. They literally do nothing but open the previously locked courthouse door, telling
victims that they should be permitted their day in court, in order to prove to the world that they were wronged in a most
heinous way. Perhaps there is one other effect - such laws are bound to make pedophiles and all past or would-be child
predators nervous. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. Before investing any more effort in choosing between
prison and death for known pedophiles, as a society we really need to focus on identifying the silent and secret society of
child predators that is now enjoying the existing statutes of limitations. Revealing these existing predators is the most
effective way of protecting our children right now - before further abuse occurs
|
|
|
|