Bill to make Delaware’s Child Victims Act retroactive draws broad support at Senate Judiciary hearing

Wilmington — Lawmakers and a string of survivors, experts and advocates urged the Delaware Senate Judiciary Committee to advance House Bill 75, which would make the state’s Child Victims Act retroactive and allow people whose civil claims were barred by time limits prior to 2007 to bring suit.

Representative Dukes, the sponsor, told the committee the change would “complete the mission” of the 2007 Child Victims Act by giving survivors who were previously barred by expired statutes, notice-of-claim deadlines, or other timelines “their day in court.” Dukes said the bill recognizes that healing can take decades and that justice should not depend on when a survivor is finally ready to speak.

Marcy Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, testified as an expert witness that permanently eliminating the defense that a case was filed too late would place cases “on the facts” rather than on procedural timing. Hamilton cautioned that other states’ experiences — notably California and Maryland — showed risks from mass-tort recruitment but argued Delaware’s earlier 2007 window and smaller population made similar surges unlikely. She recommended pairing retroactivity with evidence-based prevention policies.

Survivors and advocates framed the bill as a moral and practical correction. Bob Ellis recounted family abuse spanning decades and said HB 75 would deliver accountability and relief for survivors. Wendy Alliette Mears, a 23-year public educator and survivor, described retaliation she said followed reporting and urged the committee to “remove a time barrier that protects institutions instead of children.”

Karen Peterson, who introduced Delaware’s original Child Victims Act in 2007, told the committee reopening the window would not produce the calamity some critics predicted: “None of that happened in Delaware,” she said, recounting the earlier law’s passage and its outcomes. Paul Rabinovich, a retired educator and researcher, said the bill would waive sovereign immunity where the state is implicated and urged the committee to accept the fiscal implications as accountability for historic harms.

Mark Reardon, a private-practice lawyer with experience defending institutions, supported the bill but urged technical fixes: add an explicit ‘‘in Delaware’’ jurisdictional phrase to avoid out-of-state forum shopping; clarify language on institutional knowledge; embed constitutional citations for any sovereign-immunity waiver to withstand scrutiny; and consider restoring gross negligence language and joint-tort-fee protections.

Advocacy groups and nonprofit leaders also spoke in favor. A nonprofit executive director who identified as a survivor urged the committee to release the bill from committee, and virtual commenters including Mandy Mendoza and Barbara Allsopp urged passage as a matter of justice.

No committee vote on HB 75 is recorded in the transcript. Committee members asked technical and implementation questions during the hearing; Representative Dukes and witnesses said they had discussed liability and implementation with stakeholders and emphasized that existing liability since 2007 means the bill would extend access rather than create wholly new exposure. The sponsor urged the committee to advance the bill to the floor.

The committee adjourned for the day with additional business on the agenda; the transcript does not record a final committee vote on HB 75.