Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statute Of Limitations Child Abuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee unanimously backs bill removing civil time limits for certain offenses against children
Summary
The Judiciary Committee unanimously favorably recommended HB 117, which conforms multiple offenses to prior legislation that eliminated the civil statute of limitations for certain child-abuse offenses and moves related code provisions into the updated statutory section.
Representative Ivory presented HB 117, explaining the bill extends the 2015 reform that eliminated the civil statute of limitations for certain offenses against children and aligns several other related offenses with that standard.
"In 2015 with House Bill 277, we eliminated the statute of limitations for [child abuse] crimes," Representative Ivory said, adding HB 117 "conforms all of these various actions that amount to [child abuse] of a child and eliminates the statute of limitations as well on those." He told the committee the change is narrowly focused on civil causes of action and does not alter burdens of proof.
Ivory discussed trauma-informed reasons for the change, noting research that survivors often disclose decades after abuse; the sponsor said the average age of disclosure has historically been cited near 42. Public testimony included survivors and victim-service professionals who urged the committee to remove the time bar so survivors could seek civil remedies when they are ready.
Melaine Webster, a survivor who testified, described delayed disclosure and long-term consequences including mental-health diagnoses and substance-related treatment; she said removing civil time limits would give survivors the choice to pursue legal remedies when they are able. Marlise Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission, said the commission took a priority support position and cited research showing average disclosure ages as high as 52 in recent studies.
Representative Thompson moved adoption of Amendment 1 to HB 117; the committee adopted the amendment by voice vote and then voted unanimously to favorably recommend HB 117 as amended to the full House.
The sponsor said the bill preserves plaintiffs' burdens of proof and applies only to civil claims; committee members and public witnesses emphasized trauma-informed rationale and the goal of shifting financial responsibility for certain recovery costs toward perpetrators through civil remedies.
