Child Abuse and the Law - The Statute Of Limitations

A statute of limitations is a law that sets the time within which criminal charges or civil claims can be filed and after which one loses the right to sue or make a claim. Most states provide for extensions of the statute of limitations, either through state law or judicial tolling doctrines. A tolling doctrine is a rule that suspends the date from which a statutory period starts to run. An example is the minority tolling doctrine, which provides that a statutory period does not begin to run until the child becomes an adult. For instance, in 2003, in response to revelations of clergy abuse, Illinois extended the statute of limitations in cases of childhood sexual abuse, allowing prosecutors twenty years from the time the victim turns eighteen to bring criminal charges. Victims wishing to bring a civil suit have up to ten years from the time they discover abuse and its connection to their injuries.

Exception to Statute of Limitations in Cases of Repressed Memory

One of the legal issues contested in cases of childhood sexual abuse of repressed memory is how long the statute of limitations should run, since typically the victim has allegedly repressed the memories for many years. In 1991 Paula Hearndon sued her stepfather, Kenneth Graham, for sexually abusing her from 1968 to 1975 (when she was between the ages of eight and fifteen). According to Hearndon, the traumatic amnesia she experienced because of the abuse lasted until 1988. Because of Florida's four-year statute of limitations, the lawsuit did not proceed.

In September 2000, however, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 5–2 decision, ruled that memory loss resulting from the trauma of childhood sexual abuse should be considered an exception to the statute of limitations (Hearndon v. Graham, No. SC92665, Supreme Court of Florida [2000]).

The court, while observing that disagreements about recovered memory exist, stated:

It is widely recognized that the shock and confusion resultant from childhood molestation, often coupled with authoritative adult demands and threats for secrecy, may lead a child to deny or suppress such abuse from his or her consciousness.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on California's Retroactive Change of Statute of Limitations

In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that involved California's statute of limitations. In 1998 Marion Stogner was charged with the alleged sexual molestation of his two daughters between 1955 and 1973. Although the statute of limitations had expired, prosecutors brought criminal charges under a 1994 state law that had removed the statute of limitations for the time the crime was committed. In the trial court Stogner claimed that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids revival of prosecution that was previously time-barred. The trial court agreed, but the California Court of Appeals reversed the ruling (People v. Stogner v. California, A084772 [1999]), saying that the 1994 law is not unconstitutional as an ex post facto law. (Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution forbids the passing of an ex post facto law, or a law that applies retroactively).

Upon the defendant's second appeal, the California Court of Appeals, in Stogner v. Superior Court (93 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 37, [2001]), held that the 1994 law allows the prosecution of Stogner's alleged crimes committed between 1955 and 1973. On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Stogner v. California (01-1757). By a 5–4 vote, the high court reversed the appeals court decision, concluding that "a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution."