社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

California lawmakers agreed to a deal that will allow many survivors of to continue to sue the public bodies they say are responsible for their trauma.

The compromise released Thursday is a partial win for some victims鈥� advocates, who opposed capping the amount of damages a survivor could seek from cities, counties and school districts that employ the alleged abusers and oversee the facilities where the abuse took place.

Cities, counties and school districts had implored lawmakers to cap damages to help stop the financial bleeding since greatly expanded who could sue over childhood sexual assault in California. 

The agreement amends , a deal to address the rising costs authored last year by Sen. that fell apart at the last minute and was shelved.

The legislative deal jettisoned any caps on damages, which survivor groups argued were akin to putting a price tag on someone鈥檚 assault. Local governments and school districts were adamant that caps, while politically unappealing, were the only solution to substantially improve their financial health.

But in a win for the public entities, the deal brokered by Senate and Assembly Democratic leadership requires older survivors to present stronger evidence of their assaults. The new requirements apply to survivors over age 40 and those with cases prior to 2024 鈥� when lawmakers abolished the statute of limitations for child sex abuse cases 鈥� in which records were destroyed. 

Senate President Pro Tem , a Santa Barbara Democrat, said in a statement that 鈥減rotection and prevention鈥� were at the center of the conversations and she was grateful lawmakers could come together to 鈥減rotect justice, prioritize prevention for the millions in our care, and acknowledge the impacts to our communities.鈥�

Chantel Johnson, a spokesperson for the Youth Law Center, which represents survivors, in a statement thanked lawmakers for rejecting 鈥渟ome of the most harmful proposals under consideration鈥� and cheered the addition of preventive measures. 

鈥淭he fiscal pressures facing counties and other public entities are real, but the harm that created those costs is even more consequential,鈥� Johnson said.

But while the Youth Law Center and its allies embraced the deal, other survivor advocate groups excoriated the agreement 鈥� especially the higher evidence threshold for plaintiffs over 40 鈥� as a tragedy that will undermine some victims鈥� cases. 

They argue that since many victims don鈥檛 come forward until later in adulthood, a more stringent evidence standard denies justice for those who bring their cases later. 

鈥淚f the Legislature passes this immoral bill, we call upon Gov. Newsom to protect survivors and hold abusers accountable by vetoing SB 577,鈥� said Caroline Heldman, founder of the group Stand With Survivors, in a joint statement with four other victim advocacy groups.

Representatives for the school districts and local governments had argued that current funding should benefit children and communities today, not line the pockets of plaintiffs鈥� attorney firms that profit from taxpayer-funded settlements and damages. 

On top of any damages they must pay to victims, schools and local governments have had to set aside more and more of their budgets to cover . That has resulted in cuts to staff and programs and delayed maintenance and facilities upgrades.

鈥淐alifornians are paying a lawsuit tax on nearly everything they buy and every public service they use,鈥� said Jaime Huff, leader of the nonprofit Civil Justice Association of California, in a statement Friday. She said SB 577 鈥減uts some common sense back into a system where questionable claims and runaway litigation costs have drained billions鈥� from local governments and school districts.

The amendments also remove a controversial statute-of-limitations cutoff for claims against juvenile detention centers operated by Los Angeles County, which last year reached a with survivors of the now-shuttered MacLaren Children鈥檚 Center.

The bill also lays out a host of preventive measures to curb child sex abuse in public institutions. Counties, cities and school districts would be required to develop and submit codes of conduct and sexual assault prevention plans to the California attorney general鈥檚 office by Jan. 1, 2028 and that office would brief the Legislature on which agencies failed to comply. It also expands the list of employers considered 鈥渕andatory reporters鈥� of child sexual assault or grooming to include peace officers, probation officers, social workers and others. 

There are also provisions to crack down on fraudulent claims. Attorneys who are found to have brought a child sexual abuse claim 鈥渋n bad faith鈥� would be subject to a $25,000 fine.

Lawmakers have until Monday to consider the legislation in both chambers of the state Legislature. Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 office on Thursday declined to comment, however sources familiar with the negotiations said he indicated he would sign any deal the Legislature sent to him.

For the record: This story was updated to add a response from some victims’ rights groups that are critical of the agreement.

This article was and was republished under the license.  for their newsletters.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.