In recent years, Missouri has undertaken significant legislative efforts to amend the statutes of limitations for child abuse and sexual assault cases. These proposed changes aim to provide survivors with extended timeframes to seek justice, acknowledging the complexities and delays often associated with reporting such traumatic experiences.
Current Statutes of Limitations in Missouri
There are specific time limits within which survivors of sexual abuse can initiate legal proceedings in Missouri, like the rest of the States. For adult victims, personal injury claims related to sexual abuse must be filed within five years from the date of the incident. For intentional acts like assault and battery, however, the statute of limitations is shorter, requiring filing within two years.
For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, Missouri law provides a more extended period. Victims have until ten years after reaching the age of 21 to file a civil lawsuit, effectively allowing them until their 31st birthday. Alternatively, they have three years from the date they discover, or reasonably should have discovered, that an injury or illness was caused by the abuse—whichever is later.
Proposed Legislative Changes
Recognizing the unique challenges survivors face, Missouri legislators have introduced bills to reform these statutes of limitations:
- Elimination of Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Abuse: Senate Bill 416 proposes removing the statute of limitations for civil actions related to childhood sexual abuse. This change would allow survivors to commence legal action at any time, irrespective of their age or the time elapsed since the abuse occurred. The bill also expands the definition of "childhood sexual abuse" and includes provisions for actions against non-perpetrator defendants, such as individuals or entities that may have negligently or intentionally enabled or concealed the abuse.
- Invalidation of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in Abuse Cases: House Bill 709 aims to render NDAs unenforceable in disputes involving child sexual abuse claims. This measure addresses concerns that NDAs have been used to silence survivors, preventing them from coming forward or pursuing legal action. Notably, NDAs have posed issues for Missouri abuse survivors before, particularly in cases involving organizations like Kanakuk Kamps, a Christian sports camp near Branson made infamous for the conviction of its director, Peter Newman, for sexually abusing the attendee youth athletes in 2009, where survivors signed NDAs as part of their settlements with camp leadership.
- Constitutional Amendment for Retroactive Application: House Joint Resolution 58 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow ex post facto laws in cases involving child sexual abuse claims. If approved by voters, this amendment would permit retroactive application of new laws, enabling survivors to file claims based on updated legal standards, even if the abuse occurred before the enactment of these laws.
Rationale Behind the Proposed Changes
The motivation for these legislative reforms stems from a deeper understanding of the psychological and emotional hurdles that survivors of sexual abuse often encounter:
- Delayed Disclosure: Many survivors do not disclose their abuse until well into adulthood. Psychological studies indicate that the average age of disclosure for childhood sexual abuse survivors is approximately 52, with male survivors often taking longer to come forward than female survivors. Some never tell anyone what happened to them.
- Repressed Memories: Victims may suppress traumatic memories as a coping mechanism, leading to delayed recognition of the abuse and its impact.
- Fear and Shame: Feelings of fear, shame, or guilt can deter survivors from reporting abuse promptly. Extended statutes of limitations provide them with the necessary time to process their experiences and decide to pursue legal action.
Comparative Perspective
Missouri's current statutes of limitations are less accommodating to survivors compared to several other states. For instance, some states have entirely eliminated the statute of limitations for civil actions related to child sexual abuse, allowing survivors to file lawsuits regardless of when the abuse occurred. The proposed reforms in Missouri aim to align the state with these more progressive approaches, offering survivors greater access to justice.
Challenges and Considerations
While the proposed legislative changes are designed to support survivors, they also present certain challenges:
- Evidentiary Issues: As time passes, evidence may deteriorate, and witnesses' memories may fade, potentially complicating the pursuit of justice in older cases.
- Fairness to Defendants: Eliminating or extending statutes of limitations could raise concerns about the fairness to defendants, particularly if they are required to defend against allegations from decades prior.
- Retroactive Application: Implementing laws retroactively, as proposed in HJR-58, may face legal challenges and debates about constitutionality.
Support and Opposition
The proposed reforms have garnered both support and opposition:
- Supporters: Advocates for survivors argue that these changes are necessary to provide justice to those who have suffered in silence for years. Research shows that as much as 38% of child sexual abuse crimes are never reported, and many are reported after the statute of limitations has expired.
- Opponents: Some legal experts and organizations express concerns about the potential for an influx of claims, the challenges of defending against old allegations, and the implications of retroactively changing legal standards.
Conclusion
Missouri's proposed amendments to the statutes of limitations for child abuse and sexual assault cases represent a pivotal shift toward supporting survivors in their pursuit of justice. By eliminating time constraints and addressing legal barriers such as NDAs, these reforms acknowledge the profound and lasting impact of abuse. As the legislative process unfolds, it will be crucial to balance the rights of survivors with considerations of legal fairness, ensuring that the pursuit of justice