BishopAccountability.org
	Priest Victims Hope for Historic Decision State High Court Could Overrule Previous Dismissal of Lawsuits By Tom Heinen Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [Wisconsin] April 27, 2007 http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=597318 Wautoma - In a case that could have broad impact, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments this week over whether four men who say they were sexually abused as minors should be able to sue the Archdiocese of Milwaukee decades later on allegations of fraudulent coverups and negligent supervision of two priests. If the seven justices overturn the lower court dismissals of their lawsuits, the men would be able to seek some internal church documents and request trials in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The Legislature changed state law in 2004 to make it easier for childhood victims to sue clergy and the religious institutions that supervise them for future acts of sexual abuse, but three decisions by the state Supreme Court in 1995 and 1997 have continued to make it virtually impossible for victims to sue for molestation that occurred many years ago. "This is a historic moment because this court is now poised to consider opening the door to the victims ," Jeff Anderson, one of the attorneys representing the men, said after Tuesday's hearing. " . . . Right now in Wisconsin there is not one survivor who has gotten by these motions to dismiss." John Rothstein, the Milwaukee attorney who argued on behalf of the archdiocese, focused on the statutes of limitation - how soon someone must file a civil suit - and on public policy for allowing civil trials of any kind decades after an injury. Two of the court's decisions in the 1990s included a rationale that the First Amendment barred such lawsuits, but those cases involved the vow of celibacy and priests' sexual relationships with adults. Some justices have wanted an opportunity to clarify its relevance in a child sexual abuse case. The absence of a church-state separation argument caught the attention of Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, who asked Rothstein about it near the end of the hearing. So did Justice Patience Roggensack, who asked if he were conceding that argument or planned to bring it up later if the case goes back to the Circuit Court for trial. Declining to speak about future strategy, he said that he was not raising the issue because it had not been argued at the lower courts in this case. He pointed out that the archdiocese supported the 2004 change in state law that permits lawsuits against religious organizations if a supervisor knows of a clergy member's sexual contact with a minor and fails to report it or does not try to prevent additional incidents. But he said there could be circumstances in which a First Amendment argument would apply. The case Tuesday involved three men identified as John Does who said the late Father Siegfried Widera abused them in the 1970s, and Charles Linneman, 38, who said that former priest Franklyn Becker abused him in the 1980s. The prior state Supreme Court decisions held that the statutes of limitation clock for filing civil suits in sexual abuse cases starts ticking at the time of the latest assault, even for children and youths. But Marci Hamilton, a Pennsylvania attorney and New York law professor who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, said that they were not able to discover fraudulent coverups and negligent supervision until documents surfaced in recent California court cases against the Milwaukee archdiocese. Because of that, the three-year filing period for negligence suits and the six-year period for fraud suits should not be considered expired, she said. She also cited evidence that victims often do not recognize the injuries they have sustained until years later. Rothstein, citing case law, argued partly that the plaintiffs should have exercised due diligence and not waited for the facts to come to them. He said that they knew of the abuse, who did it, and who the employer was - enough to alert them to explore the employer's conduct. Contending that different time periods should not be used for suits against individual priests and their employers, he also said extending the time limits for fraud could seriously affect on businesses statewide. The justices are expected to decide by the end of July. Contact: theinen@journalsentinel.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.