Existing law requires that specified actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault, as defined, be commenced within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 5 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 assault, whichever occurs later. Existing law prohibits certain of those actions from commencing on or after the plaintiffs 40th birthday unless the person or entity knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any misconduct that creates a risk of childhood sexual assault by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, or the person or entity failed to take reasonable steps or to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of childhood sexual assault, as specified.

This bill would provide that a claim seeking to recover damages arising out of a sexual assault by an employee of a juvenile probation camp or detention facility owned and operated by a county or of a youth facility owned and operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice at the time the sexual assault occurred, that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2024, because the applicable statute of limitations has expired, is revived and may proceed or be commenced within one year, as specified.

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1547

Author:(McKinnor) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill would suspend, for a one-year period, the statute of limitations on civil claims of childhood sexual assault committed by an employee of a juvenile probation camp, county juvenile detention facility, or a Division of Juvenile Justice youth facility.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs to CDCR (General Fund) and counties (local funds) of an unknown but likely significant amount for litigation and settlement of claims brought under this bill. CDCR estimates potential litigation costs in the tens of millions of dollars resulting from this bill. The scope of potential county costs is unknown. Costs will depend on the number of cases filed within the revival period.
2. Potential cost pressures to the courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate cases that are time-barred by the current statute of limitation, but may be brought during the one-year revival period. Although this bill only revives one type of childhood sexual assault claims, the short duration of the revival period could result in a large number of cases being filed in a short period of time. A significant increase in workload to the courts could result in delays of court services and prioritization of court cases might impact access to justice, and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

AB 1547 will prolong the extension granted through AB 218 for an additional year and give victims of childhood sexual assault the chance to report any sexual abuse that occurred in facilities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Justice. With this extension, victims will have an opportunity to seek justice in court before the end of 2024. This bill is needed to ensure those who have been sexually abused as children by law enforcement officers are provided a realistic opportunity to seek civil redress for their harms.

1. Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Assault. The statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault has been extended several times to give survivors more time to file claims based on abuse they experienced. These changes in law were made in acknowledgment that victims of childhood sexual assault often delay reporting the abuse they experienced, or that they may not even understand that they experienced abuse until well into adulthood. Most recently, AB 218 (Gonzalez) Chapter 861, Statutes of 2019, allowed a plaintiff to file a lawsuit up to 22 years after they turned 18, or within five years of when the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered a psychological injury stemmed from childhood sexual assault. That bill also created a three-year revival period for any earlier claims that were otherwise barred by the existing statute of limitations. That revival period ended on January 1, 2023.

This bill creates a one-year revival period for childhood sexual assault claims based on assault committed by an employee of a juvenile probation camp, county juvenile detention facility, or a Division of Juvenile Justice youth facility. By suspending the current statute of limitations for one year, the bill would allow a plaintiff who was the victim of sexual assault by a specified juvenile detention facility employee to file a civil lawsuit between January 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024, even if the plaintiff’s claim would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As described above, costs associated with a one-year revival period depend on the total number of lawsuits filed during the period, which cannot be predicted. However, due to the short duration of the revival period, there may be a significant number of claims filed within a relatively short period of time, resulting in cost pressures to the entities above to litigate and adjudicate them simultaneously.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1547

Author:(McKinnor) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2023

SUBJECT: Childhood sexual assault: statute of limitations

KEY ISSUE: Should a time-barred claim arising out of a sexual assault at a juvenile detention facility be revived and allowed to commence between January 1, 2024, and december 31, 2024?

SYNOPSIS

In 2022 the Los Angeles Times reported on an untold number of sexual assaults committed by employees of juvenile facilities scattered throughout Los Angeles County. According to reports, hundreds of children, and perhaps many more, were sexually assaulted between the 1970s and 2019. In December of 2022, a suit representing 279 of these victims was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. At least two other lawsuits, albeit with fewer plaintiffs, were filed earlier in 2022. Because many of the assaults occurred many years ago, the suit took advantage of AB 218 (Chap. 861, Stats. 2019), which extended the then-existing statute of limitations (SOL) and also created a three-year window to revive otherwise time-barred clams. That three year window closed on December 31, 2022. However, not all of the victims of this abuse were included in the lawsuits filed in 2022.

This narrowly-tailored bill would create a one-year revival period, but only for victims whose assaults occurred when they were held in a state or county-operated juvenile detention facility. Earlier this session, the Committee heard and passed AB 452, which would eliminate the SOL for actions alleging childhood sexual assaults; but that bill applies to assaults occurring after January 1, 2024. As reported in the Times series, many of the young people who suffered assaults lacked the knowledge, understanding, or resources to seek legal recourse for their injuries at the time or within then-existing SOLs. This bill opens a one-year window for those youths who were victimized by the employees of juvenile facilities but who were not, for various reasons, able to join the pending lawsuits filed in 2022. The bill will not have any effect on those pending lawsuits, which were revived under the provisions of AB 218. The bill is supported by the Child Abuse Prevention Center and the Consumer Attorneys of California. There is no opposition to this bill.

SUMMARY: Provides that a claim seeking to recover damages arising out of a sexual assault by an employee of a juvenile detention facility, as described, that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2024, is revived and may proceed or be commenced until December 31, 2024. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a claim seeking to recover damages arising out of a childhood sexual assault by an employee of a juvenile probation camp or detention facility owned and operated by a county or of a youth facility owned and operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice at the time the childhood sexual assault occurred, that would otherwise be barred by applicable statutes of limitation, is revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2024, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024.
2. Specifies that the revival described in 1) above does not revive either of the following:
   1. A claim that has been litigated to finality in a court of competent jurisdiction before January 1, 2024.
   2. A claim that has been compromised by a written settlement agreement between the parties entered into before January 1, 2024.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault to commence within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within five 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 assault, whichever period expires later, for any of the following actions:
   1. An action against any person for committing an act of childhood sexual assault.
   2. An action against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity legally caused the childhood sexual assault.
   3. An action against any person or entity if an intentional act by that person or entity legally caused the childhood sexual assault.
   4. Specifies that an action described in b) or c) above shall not commence on or after the plaintiff’s 40^th birthday unless the defendant person or entity knew or had reason to know that conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent that created risk of childhood sexual assault, or the person or entity failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid childhood sexual assault. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the author, “AB 1547 will prolong the extension granted through AB 218 for an additional year and give victims of childhood sexual assault the chance to report any sexual abuse that occurred in facilities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Justice. With this extension, victims will have an opportunity to seek justice in court before the end of 2024. This bill is needed to ensure those who have been sexually abused as children by law enforcement officers are provided a realistic opportunity to seek civil redress for their harms.”

The purpose of SOLs and their evolving application to actions alleging childhood sexual assault. Unless there is a statute providing otherwise, the time for bringing a tort action is two years after the injury occurs or, depending upon the type of injury, two years after the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury. Statutes of limitation reflect the reality that, over time, evidence is lost or destroyed and witnesses’ memories fade. However, current laws regarding the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims reflect another reality, namely that victims often delay coming forward for a variety of reasons, including threats, shame, lack of trust, fear, or some combination thereof. Indeed, child victims may not even understand what has happened to them, let alone know of their right to take timely legal action. Recognizing this, several states have already eliminated SOLs for childhood sexual assault. According to the Child USA online tracker, 15 states and two U.S. territories have already eliminated SOLs for civil actions alleging sexual assault of a child, and 33 states (including California) have such bills pending. (See Child USA, National Overview of Statute of Limitations for Child Sex Abuse: 2023 SOL Reform Legislation and Best Current Civil and Criminal SOLs, at https//www.childusa.org, last visited March 17, 2023.) Last year, President Biden signed the “Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act of 2022,” which eliminated the SOL for childhood sexual assault cases brought in federal court. Previously such federal actions were subject to a 10-year limitations period. (18 U.S.C. Section 2255.)

California has long recognized the unique problem that SOLs create in childhood sexual assault cases. The state’s existing SOL for childhood sexual abuse has been amended several times. For example, SB 108 (Chap. 1578, Stats. 1990) provided that actions for childhood sexual abuse could be brought within eight years of the age of majority (generally up to 26 years of age), or within three years of the date when the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness they are experiencing in adulthood was caused by childhood sexual abuse. This statute has also been amended multiple times as it applies to third parties that might have a duty of care to the plaintiff, such as a school. Prior to 1998, actions against third parties had to be commenced within a year of the plaintiff’s 18th birthday. AB 1651 (Chap. 1032, Stats. 1998) made the time to commence actions against third parties the same as actions against abusers, so long as the suits were commenced before the plaintiff’s 26th birthday. In 2002, in response to revelations about abuse in the Catholic Church, SB 1179 (Chap. 149, Stats. 2002) amended the law yet again to allow delayed-discovery suits against third parties, at least in certain circumstances, to be brought beyond the plaintiff’s 26th birthday. Most recently, AB 218 (Chap. 861, Stats. 2019) extended the SOL for such actions by another fourteen years, from eight to 22 years after the age of majority, or typically from 26 to 40 years of age, and extended the delayed discovery provision from three to five years. AB 218 also created a three-year revival period for any lapsed case not litigated to finality before the bill's enactment. Earlier this year, this Committee heard AB 452, which, if enacted, will eliminate the SOL for childhood sexual assault going forward.

This bill will effectively add an additional year, until December 31, 2024, for childhood victims who were assaulted by an employee of a juvenile probation camp or detention facility owned and operated by a county, or an employee of a youth facility owned and operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice, if the action would otherwise be barred solely because the applicable SOL has expired. The bill, therefore, would permit a cause of action to proceed if it is already pending in court on January 1, 2024, or, if not filed by that date, will be commenced between January 1 and December 31, 2024.

A “culture of child abuse” and the need for a narrowly tailored revival of claims. In 2022 the Los Angeles Times published a series of articles detailing an appalling pattern of sexual assaults committed by employees of juvenile detention facilities in Los Angeles County. According to the Times reporting, hundreds of children, and perhaps more, were assaulted between the 1970s and 2019. In December of 2022, a lawsuit representing 279 of these victims was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Lawsuits filed earlier in 2022 include the allegations of 70 women who, as girls, were sexually assaulted at a handful of juvenile camps in Los Angeles County between 1985 and 2019. Some of the women alleged that they had been abused by more than one employee and on multiple occasions, and many of the employees named were accused by multiple plaintiffs. A former sex-crimes prosecutor claimed that the “Los Angeles County juvenile probation system has been infested with a culture of child abuse for decades.”

In recent years, as noted above, the Legislature has repeatedly found that SOLs create a bar to justice when it comes to childhood sexual abuse. Nevertheless, we know that many people who were assaulted as children in juvenile detention centers did not join the recent suit taking advantage of the AB 218 revival window. Children do not always identify what happened to them as sexual assault, and even when they do, they are relatively powerlessness to seek a legal remedy on their own. In addition to these reasons, which apply to all cases of childhood sexual assault, the argument for creating a one-year revival window restricted to assaults that occurred in a juvenile detention facility is especially compelling. As the Los Angeles Times series makes clear, children in juvenile detention are especially vulnerable. Not only was the abuse perpetrated by people who were supposed to protect them, it was carried out by people who exercised considerable power over the children. The conditions described in the pending lawsuits show that juvenile parole officers and other employees used their position of authority to offer combination of threats and favors to force children to perform sexual acts. Moreover, especially in the case of parole officers, employees of the juvenile justice system continue to exercise power over the children even after they have been released. Many children may have believed, rightly or wrongly, that if they reported their abusers they might end up back in juvenile detention. Finally, the case of children abused in juvenile detention is strong because the children often did not have the supportive families or resources that might have aided them in seeking justice through the legal system.

This narrowly tailored bill creates a one-year revival period, restricted only to childhood sexual assaults that occurred in a county- or state-operated juvenile detention facility, including so-called juvenile “camps” where much of the abuse occurred. The Los Angeles Times articles have raised awareness about the patterns, and it is quite possible that survivors who did not come forward in time to join the suits filed before December 31, 2022, will take advantage of this one-year window to seek belated justice.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), “the emotional trauma following sexual assault does not present the same in all survivors and may lead to a delay in seeking medical or legal assistance.” Minors, in particular, “may not define victimization as rape or sexual assault for many reasons such as self-blame, embarrassment, not clearly understanding the legal definition of the terms, or not wanting to define someone they know who victimized them as a rapist or because others blame them for their sexual assault.” This is especially true when “the perpetrator is someone they trusted.” While previous legislation has addressed the general problems created by SOLs in child sexual assault cases, CAOC notes that juvenile survivors, that AB 1547 seeks to help, “were in tragically unique circumstances [and] could not escape the reach and awesome power of the person whose conduct serves as the basis of the action.” AB 1547, CAOCC concludes, “will prolong the extension granted through AB 218 for an additional year and give victims of childhood sexual assault arising out of an assault by an employee of a juvenile probation camp or detention facility their day in court. With this extension, victims will have an opportunity to seek justice before the end of 2024.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Child Abuse Prevention Center

Consumer Attorneys of California

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334