Tuesday, November 14, 2017

False hope for Md. childhood sexual assault survivors

At first glance, the newly enacted Maryland law that extends the statute of limitations for victims of childhood sexual abuse from age 25 to age 38 appears to offer hope to individuals who, for any number of reasons, are psychologically unable or unwilling to seek a remedy for the horrors they experienced as children until they are well into adulthood.
That’s not how it worked out, however, and at the very least this law delivers false hope. House Bill 642 instead dealt a stealthy and significant win to the Archdiocese of Baltimore — and any other employer that has allowed perpetrators under their purview to persist in terrorizing children.
Here’s why. Although the law extends the statute of limitations from age 25 to 38, it adds an onerous requirement: Victims older than 25 who sue a rapist’s employer must now meet the notoriously difficult-to-prove gross negligence standard. Before this law, a sexual-abuse victim had to demonstrate ordinary negligence by the employer. What the new law means is that older victims suing potentially culpable employers, such as the Archdiocese of Baltimore in the priest-rape cases, must prove that the employer was acting with thoughtless disregard for the consequences without the exertion of any effort to avoid them.
Therefore, schools or camps or other organizations that purport to care for children, but allow abuse under their noses, can get off the hook and avoid compensating victims because proving gross negligence is just too hard...
...This punitive outcome from legislation that was clearly mischaracterized as rendering only a benefit to victims is unacceptable and it should be changed during the next session of the Maryland General Assembly. One way to right this wrong would be to take the high road — an approach that has worked next door in Delaware. That state lifted the statute of limitations on lawsuits for two years for victims of pediatric sexual abuse, giving them an open window to bring suit no matter how old the incidents and regardless of the reason that the victim failed to file before. Such an approach came at no cost to taxpayers, and it helped ensure that pedophiles were identified and possibly prevented from causing harm to other children...

6 comments:

  1. David Moon co-sponsored this bill, along with Delegates C.T. Wilson, Angela Angel, Vanessa Atterbeary, Eric Bromwell, William Folden and Carolyn Howard. More here: https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB642/2017

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you honestly expect a self serving body of legal scholars to do anything beneficial for the people of Maryland? If you do, then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the voters do. The incumbents are almost always re-elected. If it weren't for term limits we'd have the same council for the next how many years? Forever.

      Delete
    2. Attrition when it comes to fruition
      Is the only sure way to transition
      For the incumbent trump the opposition
      And maintain confusion and tradition.

      Delete
  3. "Proving gross negligent is just too hard. . ." simply because the General Assembly is grossly negligent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The perennial story. . .

    ReplyDelete

If your comment does not appear in 24 hours, please send your comment directly to our e-mail address:
parentscoalitionmc AT outlook.com