Survivors and advocates press lawmakers to close 'authority' loophole in sex‑abuse law (S152)
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Survivors and advocacy groups urged lawmakers to pass S152, which would create a civil cause of action for sexual relationships between adults who hold authority or trust and young people under their care, saying current criminal law does not fully address grooming and power imbalances.
Boston — Survivors, child‑welfare providers and advocates urged the Joint Committee to advance Senate Bill S152, which would establish a civil cause of action against adults who engage in sexual relationships with students or other young people over whom they hold authority or trust.
"When adults hold authority over young people, these young people are inherently vulnerable," survivor Hillary Simon told the committee. Simon said she was groomed beginning at 15 by a man who was a teacher, coach and dorm parent at her boarding school. "The burden should never be on a teenager to recognize or report that abuse," she said in testimony supporting S152.
Sen. Joan Lovely, the bill's sponsor, told the committee S152 targets cases in which a trusted adult — for example a teacher, coach or youth‑serving employee — uses their institutional power to exploit a young person. "While the age of consent in our Commonwealth is 16," Sen. Lovely said, "there's no doubt an imbalance of power exists between a student and a trusted adult in schools and youth‑serving organizations."
Advocates described grooming patterns and cited national research about prevalence. They argued that criminal law and prosecutorial remedies alone do not provide full recourse for survivors and that a civil remedy would provide survivors with an additional path to accountability and relief when criminal prosecution is not pursued or does not succeed.
Child‑welfare and treatment providers, school advocates and attorneys said the bill aligns legal exposure with the realities of grooming and power dynamics in institutional settings. Proponents urged the committee to report the bill favorably so it can move to further consideration; no vote was taken at the hearing.
Questions raised at the hearing concerned the bill's scope — for example who would qualify as "an adult in a position of authority or trust" — and how the civil standard of proof and remedies would interact with existing criminal statutes already before the judiciary committee.