BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 924
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
SB 924 (Beall) - As Amended: June 11, 2014
SENATE VOTE : 23-11
SUBJECT : Statute of Limitations: childHOOD sexual abuse
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO MORE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATE VICTIMS OF
CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE, WHO MAY NOT, FOR YEARS TO COME, FULLY
COMPREHEND THEIR ABUSE AND THE DEVASTATING HARM CAUSED BY IT,
SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE
OCCURRING AFTER JANUARY 1, 2015 BE EXTENDED UNTIL THE VICTIM
TURNS 40?
SYNOPSIS
California, like many states, has a special, extended civil
statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse because of the
uniqueness of childhood sexual abuse and the difficulty many
victims have in fully understanding the abuse they have
suffered, and its devastating, life-long consequences, coming to
terms with what has occurred and then coming forward in a timely
fashion. California gives victims up to the age of 26 (8 years
after reaching majority age) to bring an action for childhood
sexual abuse or within three years of the date the victim
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the victim's
psychological injury was caused by the abuse, whichever occurs
later. This bill seeks to better protect victims of childhood
sexual abuse by increasing, up to the victim's 40th birthday,
the statute of limitations for abuse occurring after January 1,
2015. Like the existing statute of limitations, this measure
applies equally to private and public schools and to all local
government entities.
This measure is supported by, among others, the California
Police Chiefs Association, the Santa Clara District Attorney and
crime victims organizations, who write that the psychological
injuries from sex abuse emerge later in life, well past the age
of 26, and that victims routinely need decades to arrive at the
psychological place where they can come forward. If the statute
of limitations is too short, then there can be no justice and
more children will be abused. The California Catholic
SB 924
Page 2
Conference and the California Council of Nonprofit Organizations
oppose the bill arguing that while it applies to public school
and other local government entities, as well as private
entities, it does not apply to state entities. These groups
also oppose its "unprecedented expansion" of the statute of
limitations.
SUMMARY : Extends the statute of limitations for civil actions
involving childhood sexual abuse for abuse occurring on or after
January 1, 2015. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides, for abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2015,
that the time for commencing a civil action based on injuries
resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as defined, is 22 years
after the plaintiff reaches majority (i.e., until 40 years of
age) or within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers
or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was
caused by the abuse, whichever occurs later.
2)Exempts, from the Government Tort Claims Act, claims under
#1), above, against a local public entity.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Generally provides that the time for commencing a civil action
for damages is within two years of the injury or death caused
by the wrongful act or neglect of another. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 340. All further references are to this
code unless otherwise noted.)
2)Provides that the time for commencing a civil action based on
injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as defined, is
eight years after the plaintiff reaches majority (i.e., until
26 years of age) or within three years of the date the
plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that
the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of
majority was caused by the abuse, whichever occurs later.
(Section 340.1.)
3)Allows suit against the perpetrator or specified third
parties, but prohibits suit against third parties after the
plaintiff's 26th birthday, unless the person or entity knew or
had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any
unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer,
SB 924
Page 3
representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps,
and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of
unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, as
specified. (Section 340.1.)
4)Exempts, from the Government Tort Claims Act, claims for
childhood sexual abuse against a local public entity, arising
out of conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009.
(Government Code Section 905.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill extends, prospectively only, the time for
commencing lawsuits concerning childhood sexual abuse.
Currently these actions must be brought before the victim turns
26 or within three years of the date the victim discovers or
reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury
or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the
abuse, whichever occurs later. Under this bill, these deadlines
will still apply for any act of abuse that occurs prior to
January 1, 1015. However, for any act of abuse that occurs on
or after January 1, 2015, this bill extends the statute of
limitations until the victim turns 40, while maintaining the
additional three-year period when the victim discovers or
reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury
or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the
abuse. This proposal applies equally to abuse occurring at
public and private schools and applies to all local public
entities.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Over the last 27 years the California Legislature has come
to have a better understanding of the insidious and latent
nature of the injuries suffered by a child who has been
sexually abused and the reasons why victims of childhood
sexual abuse ("CSA") often wait years before reporting the
abuse to law enforcement or otherwise. California Code of
Civil Procedure, Sec. 340.1, a remedial statute intended to
provide redress to CSA victims, has been amended no less
than five times since its original enactment in 1986,
consistent with this evolving knowledge of the latent
effects of the original abuse.
SB 924
Page 4
SB 924 is a modest proposal that would provide victims of
CSA more time than the current age of 26 and 3 years
delayed discovery to come forward and report their abuse.
This additional time is necessary to allow victims of CSA
to seek justice and expose their abusers and the third
parties that aided and abetted these heinous acts.
It Often Takes Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Years to Come
Forward and Face Their Abusers : All too often, victims of
childhood sexual abuse fail to report their abuse timely or
sometimes even fail to report it at all. The author has
provided information to show that while the victims almost
always know their abusers, they often fail to come forward
timely because of threats of harm, being ashamed, blaming
themselves, fear of not being believed, failing to fully
appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct, or suppressing very
painful memories. The author states:
Numerous studies have documented both the immediate and
long term physical and psychological injuries and harm that
results from the abuse of a child. This includes
biochemical changes in the brain, anxiety and distress,
sleep disorders, pregnancy, hypersexual behavior, low
self-esteem, sexual identity issues, a variety of
interpersonal relationship problems, lack of trust in
authority figures, substance abuse, criminal acting out,
under achievement, and more. Many of these injuries
contribute to a lack of awareness of the wrongfulness or
the connection between the abuse and the adult onset of
psychological injuries. (Footnotes omitted.)
Supporters, including the Santa Clara District Attorney and the
California Police Chiefs Association, add:
Well documented medical literature, which has developed
since the time the statute of limitations for civil claims
was last extended, demonstrates that psychological injuries
stemming from sex abuse emerge later in life, well past the
age of 26. Therefore, there is a real medical need to have
the statute extended. Victims routinely need decades to
arrive at the psychological place where they can come
forward. Abbreviated statues of limitations mean there
will be no justice at all. Moreover, perpetrators and
their enablers remain cloaked in secrecy, which leads to
perpetuated cycles of abuse; as the years pass,
SB 924
Page 5
perpetrators and enablers remain unidentified, and more and
more children fall prey.
Childhood Sexual Abuse Claims Often Have Extended Statutes of
Limitation : As a result of the uniqueness of childhood sexual
abuse and the difficulty younger victims may have fully
understanding the abuse, coming to terms with what has occurred,
and then coming forward in a timely fashion, many states have
special, extended statutes of limitations for childhood sexual
abuse. Six jurisdictions - Alaska, Delaware, Florida,
Connecticut, Maine, and Guam - have gone as far as to eliminate
the civil statute of limitations with respect to some or all
claims based on childhood sexual abuse. Other states allow for
very lengthy discovery periods in adulthood, including Oregon,
which permits claims to be filed until the victim is 40 years
old or within five years of discovery, and Illinois, which
allows a victim to bring suit until 38 or within 20 years of
discovery.
California law, as amended in 1990, requires that such actions
be brought within 8 years of the age of majority (generally up
to 26 years old) or within 3 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, whichever period
expires later. (SB 108 (Lockyer), Chap. 1578, Stats. 1990.)
The latter condition - within 3 years of making the relevant
connection - is called a "delayed discovery" rule.
This statute of limitations has been amended repeatedly as it
applies to third parties. Prior to 1998, actions against third
parties who were the legal cause of the abuse had to be
commenced within a year of the plaintiff's 18th birthday. In
1998, the law was amended to allow the same time limits against
third parties as against the abuser, provided that the suits
were commenced before the plaintiff's 26th birthday. (AB 1651
(Ortiz), Chap. 1032, Stats. 1998.) In 2002, the law was amended
again to allow, among other things, delayed-discovery suits
against such third parties after the plaintiff's 26th birthday
under limited conditions. (SB 1779 (Burton), Chap. 149, Stats.
2002.) This bill does not change the unique application of the
law with respect to third parties. It simply extends the
statute of limitations against all defendants, including the
direct perpetrator.
SB 924
Page 6
The Legislature Has the Power to Create, Extend and Change
Statutes of Limitations as it Deems Appropriate : The policy
behind statutes of limitations provides that they "are designed
to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival
of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has
been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.
The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not
to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of
limitation and the right to be free of stale claims in time
comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them." (3 Witkin,
California Procedure Section 433, 4th Ed.)
Nonetheless, courts have acknowledged that "the need for repose
is not so overarching that the Legislature cannot by express
legislative provision allow certain actions to be brought at any
time, and it has occasionally done so." (Duty v. Abex Corp
(1989) 214 Cal.App.3rd 742, 749, citations omitted.) The United
States Supreme Court has long held that:
Statutes of limitation find their justification in
necessity and convenience rather than in logic. They
represent expedients, rather than principles. . . .
They are by definition arbitrary, and their operation
does not discriminate against the just and the unjust
claim, or the avoidable or unavoidable delay . . . .
Their shelter has never been regarded as what now is
called a "fundamental right" . . . . [T]he history of
pleas of limitation shows them to be good only by
legislative grace and to be subject to a relatively
large degree of legislative control. (Chase
Securities Corp. v. Donaldson (1945) 325 U.S. 304,
314.)
Thus, the appropriate inquiry is whether the Legislature
believes that there are sufficient public policy reasons to
extend the statute of limitations, and whether such an extension
would maintain the protections afforded by the statute of
limitations, that is, balancing the interests of the victims
with the defendants' right to defend against the claim.
The author argues that public policy favors extension of the
statute of limitations because of the heinousness of the act and
difficulty that victims of childhood sexual abuse have in coming
forward timely and believes that the Legislature should,
prospectively only, extend that timeframe in order to better
SB 924
Page 7
protect victims of this most horrendous abuse.
Bill Seeks to Address Concerns Raised by the Governor Last Year :
Last year, the Legislature passed the author's AB 131, which
would have made prior extension of the statute of limitations
against third parties retroactive and, under specified
conditions, would have revived for one year certain causes of
action that would otherwise be barred solely by the statute of
limitations. That bill applied only to private institutions.
While that bill passed the Legislature, it was vetoed by the
Governor. The Governor, in a very lengthy veto message, stated,
among other things:
There comes a time when an individual or organization
should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past
acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further
lawsuits. With the passage of time, evidence may be lost
or disposed of, memories fade and witnesses move away or
die. . . .
In 2008, the Legislature addressed this unfair distinction
between victims of public as opposed to private
institutions. Note, however, that the bill enacted, SB
640, did not restore equity between these two sets of
victims. Instead of subjecting public/governmental
entities to all of the provisions of the 2002 law, the
Legislature only allowed victims of public institutions to
sue under the new rules prospectively-from 2009 forward-and
provided no "one year revival" period.
In passing this 2008 law, I can't believe the [L]egislature
decided that victims of abuse by a public entity are
somehow less deserving than those who suffered abuse by a
private entity. The children assaulted by Jerry Sandusky
at Penn State or the teachers at Miramonte Elementary
School in Los Angeles are no less worthy because of the
nature of the institution they attended. Rather, I believe
that legislators, in good faith, weighed the merits of such
claims against the equities of allowing claims to be
brought against third parties years after the abuse
occurred. The Legislature concluded that fairness required
that certain claims should be allowed, but only going
forward.
This brings us to the bill now before me, SB 131. This
SB 924
Page 8
bill does not change a victim's ability to sue a
perpetrator. This bill also does not change the
significant inequity that exists between private and public
entities. What this bill does do is go back to the only
group, i.e. private institutions, that have already been
subjected to the unusual "one year revival period" and
makes them, and them alone, subject to suit indefinitely.
This extraordinary extension of the statute of limitations,
which legislators chose not to apply to public
institutions, is simply too open-ended and unfair.
This bill seeks to address the Governor's concerns in several
important ways. First, this bill applies the extended statute
of limitations to all parties, including, particularly, the
perpetrator of the abuse. Second, this applies only to new
unlawful acts and does not extend the statute of limitations for
abuse that has already occurred. Thus, all parties are on
notice that any new act of childhood sexual abuse is subject to
the extra-long statute of limitations.
Finally, this bill, as recently amended, applies the extension
of the statute of limitations to all local public entities. As
the Governor noted in his veto, the Legislature previously
exempted, from the Government Tort Claims Act (GTCA), claims for
childhood sexual abuse against a local public entity, arising
out of conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009. This
bill, as discussed more thoroughly below, extends that exemption
to all acts of childhood sexual abuse occurring on or after
January 1, 2015. Thus, children abused in a public school or a
private school will be able to seek the exact same relief.
This Measure Now Applies Equally to Public Schools and Other
Local Entities, But Not State Entities : The California Catholic
Conference and the California Council of Nonprofit
Organizations, a group that chiefly represents Catholic and
other religious organizations, oppose the bill, as they did
prior bills to extend the statute of limitations in childhood
sexual abuse cases. They argue that this bill, while applying
equally to local government entities including schools, does not
yet apply equally to state governmental entities, such as the
Department of Mental Health, the Youth Authority and the
Department of Social Services.
This argument stems from the GTCA, which generally governs
damage claims brought against public entities. The GTCA
SB 924
Page 9
requires that a claim relating to a cause of action for death or
for injury to a person be presented in writing to the public
entity not later than six months after the date upon which the
cause of action would be deemed to have accrued within the
meaning of the applicable statute of limitations. In Shirk v.
Vista Unified School District (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, the
California Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the
childhood sexual abuse statute of limitations timeframes in CCP
Section 340.1 and its delayed discovery provisions, an abuse
victim must follow the six-month presentation rule in the GTCA
and cannot, without having done so, take advantage of the
delayed-discovery rule otherwise applicable to abuse victims.
However, the Legislature in 2008 waived, going forward, the
local government six-month notice of claim limitation
requirement that applies to all other tort claims for victims of
child sexual abuse. (SB 640 (Simitian), Chap. 383, Stats.
2008.) Thus, victims have the same time period to file a claim
against local public entities as against private institutions.
This bill now extends that GTCA exemption to cases filed under
the extended statute of limitations in the bill. As a result,
public schools are included just like private schools in the
extended statute. State government entities, however, are not.
In response to the opposition about the exclusion of state
entities, the author argues:
SB 924 is prospective-only applying to incidents that occur
on or after January 1, 2015. This means the age extension
in the bill from age 26 to 40 does apply to local public
entities, i.e. public schools. With the retroactivity
removed and public schools included the opposition has
shifted their arguments towards state agencies.
They provide no evidence of why the 6 month filing period
should be waived for state agencies, as they did for public
schools. This is simply a way for the opposition to oppose
the bill without having to say they are fundamentally
opposed to any extension in CCP 340.1.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In addition to concerns about the
exemption of state entities, discussed above, the California
Catholic Conference and the California Council of Nonprofit
Organizations oppose the bill more generally, arguing that its
SB 924
Page 10
"unprecedented expansion" of the statute of limitations ignores
the Governor's veto message about the need for a cap on the
statute of limitations. Writes the California Catholic
Conference:
Childhood sexual abuse is undeniably a heinous crime, and
all third parties (including state government entities) who
bear legal responsibility for the harm done to such victims
should be subject to the same potential civil liability.
The current limitation period for childhood sexual abuse
claims, however, already far exceeds that applicable to
other torts, and there is no justification for almost
tripling the current limitation period - or for continuing
to deny justice to victims abused by employees of state
government. The limitation proposed in this bill carries
too great a risk that a future defendant will be denied Due
Process by having to defend claims from long ago, after
witnesses have died or moved away, and documents are gone.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy -
California Division
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Police Chiefs Association
California Protective Parents Association
Child Abuse Listening Mediation, Inc.
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Crime Victims United
Incest Survivors' Speakers Bureau of California
Restorative Justice International
Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
The Safe Child Coalition
Opposition
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Catholic Conference Inc.
California Council of Nonprofit Organizations
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
SB 924
Page 11
319-2334