Child victims (of abuse by priests) must sue by 20 -- Ohio

[theHandpuppet]

Where else but Ohio?

Child victims must sue by 20
Ruling could wipe out scores of suits against priests

BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Ohioans who accuse Catholic priests of abusing them as children must sue by age 20 or their cases will be thrown out, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court's 5-2 decision could wipe out dozens of lawsuits across the state that accused priests of sexual abuse.

The ruling is a setback to abuse victims and their advocates, who wanted the court to extend Ohio's time limit for filing lawsuits.

The justices said they understood why victims might want more time to come to terms with the abuse before going to court. But they said it would be unfair and improper to ignore a law that has been in place for decades.

"We are constrained by the law as it exists today," wrote Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who authored the majority opinion.

Attorneys on both sides believe the court's decision is likely to affect dozens of lawsuits, including those involving more than 50 people in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati...

MORE at http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/NEWS01/606010381

[6000eliot]

1. This is a disgusting sop to the catholic church

[saigon68]

18. Ah yes Anal Sodomy of six year old boys

And they sweep it under the Carpet

Go here to learn more about these Pedophile Criminals being protected by the Hierarchy



http://www.snapnetwork.org/

[Bridget Burke]

25. You're really fond of that "image"--aren't you?

Nearly all of the cases involved older "boys." And some girls--but I guess you don't mind if they are molested.

Too bad their parents didn't bother to contact the cops. But some will get payoffs.

[saigon68]

26. So you think it's OK if they are 12 or 14 ?

And what about the parents contacting the cops ?

Most little 12 year old boys are too embarrassed to tell MOMMY when their RECTUMS are Sodomized by Hairy Priests with Clerical Collars.

And then Corrupt Criminal Bishops move the Pedophiles around to a different Venue

So these Sex criminals can start over with a new Flock of Child Victims.

The Catholic Church's response to Anal Sodomy of Children is Reprehensible.

[Bridget Burke]

28. Well, when a 14 year old boy fucks a pretty female teacher....

Lots of DU'ers cheer him on. And not every "molestation" involves the act you find so fascinating. Is it the homosexuality that upsets you? Are you similarly repelled by what consenting adult males do to each other? What about girls who are molested?

If the boys didn't tell ANYONE--how could the Bishops be guilty? Sounds as though the parents were the embarrassed ones. They didn't want to press charges, but just wanted things handled quietly. OF COURSE Church officials were wrong not to contact the secular authorities. Even if an adolescent "consents"--there's still that "age of consent" thing to consider. At least, no future parent should consider shirking their duty--even if it reduces the chance of a fat settlement later on.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Non-clergy pedophiles are still on the hook indefinitely

Kinda gives a pervert an even better reason to take Religious Orders, doesn't it?

--p!
Bless me Father, for I have Rawked!

[Preening Fop]

5. Federalist Society Repugs control the Ohio Supreme Court.

:yoiks:

[meow2u3]

8. OPUS DEI Federalist Soceity repukes control the US Supreme Court

Not just the Ohio Supreme Court. :puke:
I heard Opus Dei is a safe haven for pedophiles.

[Lost4words]

27. As long as you extend the reach of the church, you can eat a baby a day

and its fine with the pope.

[truthisfreedom]

3. i'm curious where this law came from.

[Orsino]

7. It comes from the general corporatist disregard for individuals...

...worth less than a million dollars.

[AngryOldDem]

11. Been on the books for years

But then when all the priest sex scandals started coming out, many began to question how "just" it was to limit the time when victims could seek recourse, especially if it takes them many years to come to terms with what happened to them.

Several groups, especially Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) began to lobby to change the statute of limitations to 20 years from the time a person turned 18. It was also proposed that clergy fall under the same "mandatory reporter" provision that includes doctors, teachers, social workers, etc.

A bill was written and it sat in the Judiciary Committee for over a year. For a time I helped track its (lack of) progress. In the meantime many churches (not only Catholic) waged a vigorous campaign against it. The Church was the most vocal, raising all sorts of red-herrings about the "sanctity of the seal of Confession," "spurious lawsuits," etc. The bill, though, eventually moved out of committee and passed in the Ohio Senate, but the Republicans shot it down in the House. The Church, needless to say, is much relieved and very happy that the status quo (and its wallet) has once again been protected.

To me, the Church is still walking, talking proof of Lord Acton's observation about power and how it corrupts. It, more than any other group, killed HB 17 in the Ohio Legislature.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. How christian of them

Does this law apply to all pedophiles? We wouldn't want to discriminate. :sarcasm:

[greekspeak]

6. Fascinating...it seems little good news comes out of Ohio

Is there any aspect of Ohio politics that is not saturated in corruption?

[Benhurst]

9. The priesthood: a license to bugger. Way to go, Ohio. NT

[wicket]

10. It's just like the Pretenders song:

"Ay - O, way to go Ohio..."

[Bridget Burke]

12. What a pity no parents filed criminal charges.

Molesters could have been sent to prison & other children protected.

But at least SOME of the survivors will still get big settlements.

[saigon68]

24. The Corrupt Church Hierarchy will fight them

To the Bitter End

[w4rma]

13. Where did they get that arbitrary number from? (nt)

[happyslug]

14. The general law Regarding Statute of Limitations

In most states the Statute of Limitation (The time period to bring ANY Action) is four years for Contracts, Two years for torts (And six months in a Civil Rights Action). If you miss the deadline you are out of court. The Reason such deadlines were adopted was that after a while most people get rid of old paperwork (or it is lost, destroyed etc) so an adequate defense is NOT possible. Thus the legislative Justification for ANY statute of limitation is that why should a PLAINTIFF gain an advantage in Court do to delaying filing an action?

Thus over the years (independent of the Pedophile cases) various statute of Limitations were adopted nationwide. Since the 1950s there has been a push to adopt the Four Years Statute of Limitation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) but some states have NOT done so (and regarding Civil Rights most states and the Federal Government have a Six MONTH statute of Limitation).

As to Children, the Statute does not start to run till they turn 18 (21 before the general reduction of the act of majority in the early 1970s). Thus the age 20 limitations in this case, that is two years from the time the child turned 18.

Now some states have extended their Statute of Limitation but the courts have had a problem with this. When it comes to extending it for events AFTER the extension the courts have UPHELD the statute on the grounds the Legislature has to right to change the Stature any any time. The problem is when the Legislature does it retroactively i.e. extend it for PAST acts not just future acts. The Courts have to view these changes as Post Facto laws (Laws making something that was legal in the past illegal when done in the past). Under the US Constitutional Post Factor laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Now the general concept is such post factor laws relates to criminal acts only, the Courts have NOT liked changes in Statute of Limitations that makes makes a case that was time barred from being filed now able to be filed.

I hate to say this but I LIKE Statute of limitations. It gives FINALITY to actions in the past. This may hurt some people but it helps more people (Especially my clients when it comes to old debts and claims against them).

[MichiganVote]

15. Altho' your factual summary is correct, as I understand the law,

the current state of affairs (statutes/limitations) assumes facts that are denied so much as an internal investigation, let alone court action. Since the use of S/L laws routinely assume that all criminal allegations and subsequent legal action are of the same severity, quality and quantity, it can only be fairly stated that the use of law itself is biased and unjust.

You prove my very point re: the uselessness and illegality of statutes when you compare debtor claims to those of the very dangerous and destructive crime of sexual misconduct against minors. Moreoever, it is untrue that the RCC has lost or destroyed much of its documentation re: abusive priests. Factually, the church has kept very complete records in secret and resisted efforts to have this documentation released. One can hardly make a case for stale claims when highly relevant documentation is entirely available but has not seen the light of day.

Statues of limitation may limit the extent of the law but it should not limit justice. When applied to victim claims such as those alleged by clergy abuse victims, S/L has the effect of denying the public of its day in court and providing safehaven to a church and its criminal element. If factual accuracy is the basis of law and justice is not, conditions of fairness in any legal domain are non existent or severely diminished.

[happyslug]

19. First, IN BOTH CASES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEBTS NOT CRIMES

Remember the issue is the ability to SUE the Catholic Church for actions of its Priests. We are NOT talking about CRIMINAL actions against said priests. That comes under a separate Statute of Limitations regarding Criminal actions (Generally Two years for most "non-violent" crimes, higher for crimes involving force or the use of force ).

As to Criminal statutes the Courts have held that such statutes be construed fairly liberally, i.e. two years means two years. In Civil Cases, the Courts have stricter in interpretations, i.e. if there is a way AROUND the statute the Courts will permit such a lawsuit (For example you are harmed by drinking something but do NOT find out about it for 20 years, your statute of Limitations only starts when you found out about being poisoned NOT when you were poisoned 20 years before).

Thus the problem with Pedophilia is that the victim KNEW he or she was a victim BEFORE they turned 18. Unless you can show that after age 18 they could NOT have known of the causation of the harm done to them the statute starts running at age 18. This is true of ANY harm done to a Child, if they parents do NOT file an action, they can do it themselves at age 18 till the expiration of the Statute of Limitations which is generally two years (Thus the age 20 requirement stated in the Article). Furthermore most of these acts had to occur before the child came of the Age of Consent for the State, Generally 14 or 16 but I do NOT know Ohio's Law on the age of Consent, but any act after the age of consent is NOT pedophilia and as such NOT actionable). My point is that the Victim did NOT have two years to file his action but 4-6 years.


The Second problem with your position is the Age of the Victims and how the Common Law Handled sex with people of that age. Under the Common Law the age of Consent was 12 not the 14, 15, 16 or 18 of todays statures (Thus such cases are referred to as "statutory rape" for they are "rape" under the Statute NOT the Common Law). An old rule of statutory Construction is that any law in derogation of the Common Law must be construed strictly i.e. to its written terms unless it is a complete re-write of the Common Law (Which most Statutory Rape laws are NOT).

I bring this up for the fact most of the cases involving Priests and Children, the Children are over age 12 (With very few between the ages of 10 and 12 and None under the age of 10 based on the latest study on Catholic Church Records regarding cases of Priests abusing Children and such Abuse being reported to the Church Hierarchy). Thus under the Common Law most of these same people would NOT have a case unless they can show FORCE as in Rape proper (And most can not, these tend to be "consensual" sexual acts as that terms is generally used in the courts). Thus the Courts have a problem with these cases, most of the victims would NOT be victims under the Common law (Unless the act was Homosexual and then the crime was Homosexuality NOT Pedophilia and most states have abolished Homosexuality as a Crime). Thus the courts what to get rid of these cases in a timely manner and if the Victim is NOT diligent to file an claim within the Statute of Limitations (Unless he has some good reason why he could NOT do so i.e. Military Service etc) he or she is time barred from proceeding.

The Statute of Limitation is General in aim, it covers ALL non-violent criminal act that a person can sue the prep as while as bring criminal charges against him. Furthermore the aim of the lawsuit is NOT the prep but his employer, the Catholic Church, for failing to provide adequate protection to the children placed in their care and to take action against one of their Employees who may have violated that trust.

Remember what the Catholic Church is being sue for i.e. NOT the actual cases of Pedophilia but the fact when such acts were brought up to the attention of the Bishop he either did Nothing or kept moving the prep around leading to more victims. Now it is hard to prove each act of pedophilia (and often such accusations are made without foundation) but after moving the priest once and the reports continued in the new parish shows that the problem was NOT a false report but the priest himself. One case of Pedophilia helped proved the next case and so forth. It is the failure of the Church to see the pattern that would be clear to any reasonable person that the Church is being held liable for. The Courts know and accept any one case of Pedophilia is hard to prove or disprove (and puts the burden on the Victim), but once you have several different cases, each one by themselves unprovable, but together proves one priest has a problem, the Church became liable for failing to take corrective actions once such a pattern was clear.

Thus the Courts want these cases out of its business. The Church had a problem with its ability to discipline its own priests (Most organizations have this problem, it is easy to discipline people you do not know but hard to discipline your friends, it is the later the Church had to do and failed to do). This lack of Discipline is why the Church has incurred these lawsuits, Discipline the Church has adopted rules since the mid-1980s to address (Through most were not implemented till the mid-1990s). In many ways the Courts would like to see how these new rules work instead of punishing the Church for actions the Church has adopted remedies to end.

[MichiganVote]

20. Rebuttel

"Remember the issue is the ability to SUE the Catholic Church for actions of its Priests. We are NOT talking about CRIMINAL actions against said priests. That comes under a separate Statute of Limitations regarding Criminal actions (Generally Two years for most "non-violent" crimes, higher for crimes involving force or the use of force )."

----A statute is a statute is a statute....the only difference I see is that in the case of criminal cases, a prosecutor has the option to pursue a case of sexual misconduct or not. In civil suits, a judge may or may not throw out the case. Bear in mind that many civil cases of past sexual misconduct for damages have been allowed to proceed on the basis of psychological conditions that preclude full awareness. Denied in some areas, allowed in others.

"Thus the problem with Pedophilia is that the victim KNEW he or she was a victim BEFORE they turned 18. Unless you can show that after age 18 they could NOT have known of the causation of the harm done to them the statute starts running at age 18."

----That is not true in all cases and you know it. Moreoever, in the case of criminal action b/f age 18, this idea is not even relevant, except to the defense attorney who attempts to make it so. In addition, Pedophilia is a psychological condition that is not (1. determined to exist by a court of attorneys, however much they would like it to be and (2. criminal intent or action is neither proven or denied by psychological conditions alone. To say that one has 2-6 years in which to file is to deny the verified fact that, on average, most victims of criminal sexual conduct only begin to deal with the after affects of their victimization in their 30's. So how does it help society if statutes limit access to criminal or civil courts at that time, justice is not served, and potential repeat offenders are given a free ride?

"The Second problem with your position is the Age of the Victims and how the Common Law Handled sex with people of that age. Under the Common Law the age of Consent was 12 not the 14, 15, 16 or 18 of todays statures (Thus such cases are referred to as "statutory rape" for they are "rape" under the Statute NOT the Common Law). An old rule of statutory Construction is that any law in derogation of the Common Law must be construed strictly i.e. to its written terms unless it is a complete re-write of the Common Law (Which most Statutory Rape laws are NOT)."

----The problem with these positions you cite is that they are older than the hills, virtually useless to society and do not address the repeat nature of these crimes. But hey, what do I know, segments of society still believe the earth is 6000 years old, deny gravity and pray to pagan idols.

"I bring this up for the fact most of the cases involving Priests and Children, the Children are over age 12 (With very few between the ages of 10 and 12 and None under the age of 10 based on the latest study on Catholic Church Records regarding cases of Priests abusing Children and such Abuse being reported to the Church Hierarchy)."

----Your information is in error. Regardless, the church is hardly the entity to trust for complete information as they have a vested interest in making it appear that wanton homosexual youths trysted with adult male homosexual priests. Differing views on the gender and ages of clergy abuse victims are everywhere. Consent laws vary by state as you well know. Again, there is no law for being diagnosed with Pedophilia or Schizophrenia or for having Depression. In actuality, the majority of the offending priests are presumed to have more than one serious mental illness. Physical force alone has never formed the sole basis for lack of consent.

"......Now it is hard to prove each act of pedophilia (and often such accusations are made without foundation)but after moving the priest once and the reports continued in the new parish shows that the problem was NOT a false report but the priest himself."

NOTE: no definition of "foundation".

----Again, pedophilia is not a crime and is not the basis of either a civil or criminal action. Rather, civil or criminal action is pursued for damages. The church incurred the huge problem they have because they secretly, systematically and relentlessly moved sick individuals around areas where children played, went to school and participated in religious activities. What the "church" wants now is irrelevant as our laws prohibit or are supposed to prohibit lienciency for organizations that clearly disregarded the laws in this country, the rights of children and the very basis of a christian family; exposing the young to barbaric practices. The supposed reforms of the 80's were nothing but a toothless tiger, by the mid 90's a mere handful of Bishops had enacted a few of the supposed reforms but congregation members were still shut out from the knowledge that their "Father" was a sick bastard who liked to mess with kids or young people. The current reform measures are NOT enacted in all areas of the US and it remains to be seen what effect they may have in the future. The church has already dropped several key provisions of their reform measures.

Allow me to point out that all debt that is unpaid without the consent of those to whom payment should be made amounts to theft. The RCC has acted as a thieving snake in the grass and is now paying its debts to the extent that the laws or mere mortals permit it. For all the parents who were so willfully deceived by the deceit of Bishops, Cardinals and yes, Rome, I say, Good! Its about time and frankly, its too bad that more christian parents don't sue their churches for fraud.

[happyslug]

21. What law means by the term "Known" is clear.

That is when you have some knowledge (not perfect knowledge, just that an act has occurred) that an act has occur that would cause you harm. That you do NOT want to admit that it occurred or admit the act caused you harm IS NOT IMPORTANT. The only Knowledge is that you were harmed. The classic case was about ten years ago, a Teacher while in Prison for Pedophilia finally found the evidence that he had been framed (It was clear and convincing evidence of a frame up). It still took him almost a year to get released for he refused to sign away his right to sue the Pennsylvania State Police whose officer had framed him.. Upon his release he then sued the State Police, the case was dismissed for it was filed AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATE OF LIMITATION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION (Which is Six Months in Pennsylvania). The court DISMISSED HIS CLAIM for filing to late. His defense he filed as soon as he was released from Prison had NO affect on the Ruling, neither did his claim he was afraid to file as long as he was in Prison for fear of retaliation for filing the Lawsuit. The Judge ruled the law was clear, his cause of action against the State Police did NOT start to run when the frame up occurred, but did start to run once he found out about the frame up. The fact that he was in Prison was ruled NO excuse for filing the action within the six month statute of Limitation period. The teacher KNEW who had framed him and he had to file that action, while in prison, against the Officer in question. His failure to do so within the period of the Statute of Limitation was NOT RELIEVED by the fact he was still under the control of the State during that Si month period.

Now every state does not have a "Stature of Limitations" instead most states have several "Statute of Limitations". In Pennsylvania these are collected into one section of the Judiciary Code, starting with Statute of Limitations of Six months or less. Than the next a Statute for One year, then another statute for two years, Three years, Four years, Five Years, Ten Years, 20 years, 21 years and finally acts that have NO statute of limitations (For example Murder). While there have been a push to make as many as these four years, there have been Resistance (Mostly from Police who like the six month limitations on Civil Rights Violations, and from banks who like that any act done under seal in Pennsylvania has a 21 stature of Limitation). In Pennsylvania while Contracts have a Four year statute of limitations, Crimes and torts have a two years stature of Limitation (I suspect Ohio is Similar). Now the courts do hold Statute of Limitations involving Crimes to a higher standard then the same statute covering Torts, but the two year period tends to be the same for BOTH.

As to the ability of the Victim to accept that he or she has been a victim. This is a constant problem with the Justice System. The Court rationale is simply if you are harmed you know it at the time of the incident or shortly thereafter UNLESS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN HARMED (I.e. the case of the poison water you drunk without knowing it was poison and no way to find out till years later, this is how the Asbestos Litigation was achieved, the makers of Asbestos knew it was harmful but still left their workers around it, the workers did not find out the asbestos was causing them harm till they came down with a form of lung cancer that is tied directly with Asbestos, they then sued within the two years period AFTER the disease had been diagnosis and won their case against the Makers of Asbestos even if it was 30-40 years AFTER they last worked with Asbestos).

The problem with the victim of Pedophilia is that they KNOW what the priest did to them (unlike Asbestos where it was called Harmless by the makers). Thus the statute of Limitation as far as the courts are concerned started to run WHEN THE ACT OCCURRED (or whenever the victim turned 18).

Now you may NOT like the above, but it is the law as its is today in Most (if not all) states. If you do not like it complain to your state legislator and asked him to change it, do not attack the courts for ruling on a law AS IT IS WRITTEN. My sole post in this discussion is NOT to say this law is right or wrong (That is up to each person to decide) but to explain the decision and why it is supported by most lawyers as to its logic.

[MichiganVote]

22. happyslug, you have a very singular view of criminal sexual conduct,

and of victimization or vic' stories. Moreover, you continue to relate that pedophilia is a crime. Pedophilia is a psychological diagnosis and not a crime in itself. And no, there are countless accounts of children or youth not "knowing" what was done to them irrespective of knowledge, experience or physical damage.

It is clear to me from your posts that we are not speaking the same language and that your experience in the area of criminal sexual conduct is modest. Were it greater, you would recognize the score of cases that have provided exceptions to the various national and state statues currently in vogue. It is true that some courts or jurisdictions have proven more restrictive than others but the fact remains that a literal reading only of statute law in criminal or civil law can be and often has been false in the area of sexual victimization.

Lastly, show me the lawyer who has built his/her 'winning' case on the "logic" of the law and I'll show you a first year law student.

[w4rma]

17. That makes sense. Thanks! (nt)

[dsc]

16. a couple of things

First, courts have no business rewriting laws without some constitutional basis. The law here was pretty clear. It also, even if unwise, was clearly constitutional. Incidently it doesn't only apply to churches as one commenter here said. I think 2 years is a little low. But there does have to be some finality or else people could be sued decades later and have literally no means to defend themselves. But that is for the legislature to decide and it did by changing the law just not retroactively.

[DiverDave]

23. Yeah, the pain lasts a lifetime

but you only get this much to sue the pedophile enabler bastards?

Oh, I was molested at 5-8 and it STILL is with me....so there is no time limit on that aspect.