SACRAMENTO (CA)
CHILD USA [Philadelphia PA]
January 20, 2025
By Leslie C. Griffin
Do you remember Roman Polanski? Polanski, now 91 years old, is a famous movie director and actor, known, especially, for directing the films Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown. He left the United States for France in 1978, after he pled guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer. He was worried that the judge in that case would give him a 50-year sentence instead of following the briefer plea bargain.[1]
Polanski was sued in 2023 for child sexual assault in Los Angeles. The victim, Jane Doe, says Polanski gave her tequila and raped her in 1973, when she was 16 years old.[2] At his California home, he gave her tequila shots, and when she woke up he said he was going to have sex with her. She said no, but he took off her clothes and raped her. [3]
The plaintiff, sometimes known in public as Robin, appeared with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, to talk about her rape claims in a 2017 news conference. [4] The trial was supposed to take place in August 2025. But now the parties have settled the case on undisclosed terms. [5] Allred said “the terms had been ‘agreed to by the parties to their mutual satisfaction.’” [6]
The recent lawsuit against Polanski was filed because of California laws that opened the courts to prior victims of sexual abuse, where statutes of limitations [SOLs] had already expired before they had filed their lawsuits.[7] Statutes of limitations tell what date people must file their lawsuit by. They frequently keep abuse victims from suing their abusers in court because the victims are almost always ruled to be too late in filing their claims.
California’s opening of the courts brought numerous Catholic cases into court. There were already many Catholic cases in the records because of earlier court extensions of the statute of limitations. California includes the archdioceses of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the dioceses of Fresno, Monterey, Oakland, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Rosa, and Stockton. These groups handle their abusers and reports of the abuse differently. This essay describes how California’s changes in the statutes of limitations opened the courts to more survivors of abuse.
At the end, I observe the history of California’s mandatory reporting laws about sexual abuse. These laws vary from state to state, so it is worth seeing what California has done.
- The Statutes of Limitations
Around the country, statutes of limitations determine when plaintiffs get into court. If the SOL has ended, it is too late to file a lawsuit. States around the country have disagreed whether the courts should be open or closed, whether it is better to close them quickly or to give survivors years to realize they have a claim so the courts should stay open. Studies show that abuse victims wait, often many years, before they are comfortable reporting their abuse.[8]
In California there is no SOL for criminal felony sex offenses.[9]
- 2003
In 2002, the California legislature created a one-year window opening the cases that were previously closed by the SOLs. “Indeed, in 2003, any California childhood sexual abuse victim could go to the courthouse and find that the statute-of-limitations lock had been taken off the courtroom door.”[10] At the same time, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Stogner that California’s retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to criminal cases of sexual offenses against minors was unconstitutional.[11] The Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, which says “no ex post facto Law shall be passed,”[12] barred the retroactive application of California’s SOL criminal law. [13]
Although the criminal cases were barred, the civil cases were allowed to continue and to have their SOLs extended.
Catholic dioceses paid more than $1.2 billion to settle the 2003 cases, and released confidential documents that showed the church had been hiding the abusers from the courts. [14]
In 2003-04, a 1-year window revived the SOL against private organizations only, especially those who could not be criminally prosecuted under Stogner.[15]
- 2020
Because of growing concerns and openness about the horrors of sexual abuse, California opened a three-year window, from 2020-2023, that allowed survivors to file lawsuits starting January 1, 2020.[16] California Governor Jerry Brown had refused to open this window, but Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law. [17]
Thousands of lawsuits were filed in response to this three-year window. [18] The window was opened in part in response to the huge news coverage of Michigan’s Larry Nassar, a doctor who abused numerous young athletes, and the ongoing reports of abuse by Catholic priests in many states. “The idea that someone who is assaulted as a child can actually run out of time to report that abuse is outrageous,” according to the bill’s sponsor.[19]
The law existing at the time of this change allowed survivors to file within eight years of becoming an adult (i.e., by age 26, 18 + 8) or within three years of the time they should have discovered the damage, whichever is later. [20] The new bill extended the timing from 26 to 40 (18 + 22), and expanded the discovery period from 3 to 5 years. [21] The law also allowed the three-year window to revive claims previously expired under the SOL. Damages could be trebled if there was a cover up of the assault. Plaintiffs older than 40 must file a declaration from a mental health professional that there is a reasonable basis to believe their allegations. [22]
Under the 2003 SOL, 850 clergy abuse victims and 150 others sued the church and other institutions. Under the 2020 law, by December 2022 more than 2,000 lawsuits were filed against the Catholic Church. [23] By a May 2023 report, more than 3000 Catholic lawsuits were filed under the three-year opening of SOL. [24] Another report says more than 4,000 people sued the Catholic Church under the new SOL.[25] The bar on people over 40 filing lawsuits will be back in effect when this December 2022 deadline ends. [26]
- 2024
There is no civil SOL in California for child sexual abuse on or after January 1, 2024.[27]
In 2024, the California legislature considered a bill that would give a one-year extension to the SOL for child victims of sexual assault by employees of juvenile probation camps or detention facilities of the Department of Juvenile Justice. This bill did not pass on February 1, 2024.[28]
In their testimony in support of this legislation, CHILD USA noted:
California currently has a confusing patchwork of CSA [child sexual abuse] civil SOLs that has helped few survivors and left most without meaningful recourse for their injuries. Up until 2019, CSA survivors were blocked from filing suit after age 26 or 3 years after discovering their injuries. However, this discovery rule was ineffective for claims against government entities. In 2019, the legislature acknowledged this was not nearly enough time, amending the SOL to give survivors until age 40 or 5 years from discovery of their injuries to sue all those responsible for their abuse, including government entities. California has also opened two separate revival windows, the first from January 1, 2003 until December 31, 2003, and the second from January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2022. While California has made some progress, many adult survivors are still shut out of the courts, and institutions that enabled rampant CSA have yet to be held accountable. … California is not amongst the highest ranked states because its age 40 revival law does not help all survivors. [29]
The jurisdictions that have fully revived expired civil SOLs have gained valuable information about hidden child predators and the institutions that harbored them, enabling them to better empower victims. These revival laws do not yield a high number of cases, but instead provide long-overdue justice to older victims of child sex abuse. They also address the systemic issue of institutional CSA, which occurs with alarming frequency in athletic institutions, youth-serving organizations, medical facilities, and religious groups. Without institutional accountability for enabling or turning a blind eye to child sex abuse, the children these institutions serve remain at risk. While this bill’s revival window will incentivize the Division of Juvenile Justice to implement prevention policies, California needs a permanent revival window to motive all youth-serving organizations to immediately report abuse and safeguard the children in their care. A permanent revival window sends a strong message that California will not tolerate “passing the trash” or looking the other way when a person is raping or molesting a child in their midst.[30]
“Passing the trash” means sending abusers from one job to the next, thus avoiding their accountability to survivors. Note CHILD USA’s language about California’s “confusing patchwork” [31] of SOL laws. With its mixed history, California shows the strengths and weaknesses of state laws governing child sexual abuse. When survivors get their day in court, we learn much more about predators on children.
States disagree about whether clergy, who are often abusers, have any duty to report sexual misconduct when they become aware of it.
- Mandatory Reporting Laws
States differ about who is required to report child abuse, often disagreeing about whether clergy are required to report the abuse. Massachusetts, for example, originally exempted clergy from its reporting requirements.[32]
Since 1980, California has identified a long list of mandatory reporters. [33] The list includes teachers, administrators, camp employees, other employees of organizations that work with youth, and many types of health care professionals.[34] Since 1996, specifically included on the list of mandatory reporters are clergy: “(32) A clergy member, as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11166. As used in this article, ‘clergy member’ means a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.”[35] The next section includes “Any custodian of records of a clergy member.”[36]
However, there is a penitential exemption for clergy, which gives them some freedom not to report, but does not rob clergy of their requirement to report child abuse that takes place in non-penitential settings. The statute, which is the cited subdivision (d) of Section 11166, states:
(d)(1) A clergy member who acquires knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect during a penitential communication is not subject to subdivision (a) [which requires reporting]. For the purposes of this subdivision, “penitential communication” means a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
(2) This subdivision does not modify or limit a clergy member’s duty to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect when the clergy member is acting in some other capacity that would otherwise make the clergy member a mandated reporter.[37]
There is punishment for those who do not report the offense:
(c) A mandated reporter who fails to report an incident of known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months confinement in a county jail or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both that imprisonment and fine. If a mandated reporter intentionally conceals the mandated reporter’s failure to report an incident known by the mandated reporter to be abuse or severe neglect under this section, the failure to report is a continuing offense until an agency … discovers the offense.
Any supervisor or administrator who violates § 11166(1) (that prohibits impeding others from making a report), shall be punished by not more than 6 months in a county jail or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
Any mandated reporter who willfully fails to report abuse or neglect, or any person who impedes or inhibits a report of abuse or neglect, where that abuse or neglect results in death or great bodily injury, shall be punished by not more than 1 year in a county jail or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. [38]
In 2019, Democratic State Senator Jerry Hill recommended removing the penitential privilege from the statute.[39] The California Catholic Conference recommended the state keep the current law: “Inserting government into the Confessional does nothing to protect children and everything to erode the fundamental constitutional rights and liberties we enjoy as Americans.” [40]
The following cases have examined the clergy’s reporting requirements.
In Father Conley’s suit against the Archbishop of San Francisco, a California appellate court allowed the priest’s defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit against the archbishop to proceed. The priest, Reverend John P. Conley, argued that he had been retaliated against for acting as a mandatory reporter of abuse committed by a pastor, Father James W. Aylward. The archbishop had questioned Conley’s report, and removed him from his jobs in the church. The archbishop also sponsored a letter published in a San Francisco newspaper that said Conley had engaged in a “witch hunt” against Aylward.[41] The appeals court backed Conley: “To permit respondent to escape scrutiny for its actions would be contrary to the legislative intent in amending section 11166 to include clergy members as mandatory reporters.”[42] The court relied on an earlier case, People v. Hodges 10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 20 (1992), in which the court had ruled that applying the mandatory reporter act to clergy did not violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.[43]
In an unpublished, noncitable opinion, a California court of appeal dismissed Thomas Emens’ public nuisance and civil conspiracy lawsuit against 2 archdioceses, 9 dioceses, and the California Catholic Conference, but gave Emens leave to edit his complaint. Emens said the churches had abused children through hiding abuse, employing the abusers and lying about what had happened in the abuse cases. The church filed an anti-SLAPP suit response to Emens. SLAPP is the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which prohibits lawsuits against legally protected activity.[44] In its review, the appeals court noted that “the Church defendants’ argument on appeal boils down to whether those two types of conduct—that is, failing to report sexual molestation crimes to the proper authorities and continuing to employ priests who have engaged in sexual molestation—constitute ‘conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the … constitutional right of free speech in connection with an … issue of public interest.’” [45] Listen to the court’s answer: “They do not.”[46] Failing to report abusers and continuing to employ abusers are not legal conduct that the law protects.
Because neither activity was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the appeals court dismissed the church’s defense. The trial court had ruled that the public nuisance and conspiracy claims were inadequately pled and had no merit. The trial court was ordered to dismiss Emens’ claims but to allow him to amend.[47]
In a case ordered not to be officially published, Ratcliff v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of Los Angeles, 278 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (Ct. App. 2021), seven adults who had been molested by a priest when they were children sued the archdiocese as “vicariously liable for ratifying molestation and directly liable for its own negligence in failing to supervise priest.”[48] The court denied the church’s anti-SLAPP motion because “the gravamen of the suit against the Archdiocese is not speech – it is the molestation and failure to supervise.”[49] The alleged abuser, Father Christopher Cunningham, was not named in the suit, but was included on the archdiocese’s 2008 list of credibly accused abusers.[50] The case also included reference to the mandatory reporter statutes. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s rule against the church as not being allowed to use SLAPP to end the case. [51]
The California Supreme Court ordered the court to vacate its decision and reconsider it in light of Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1009-1012, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, 491 P.3d 1058. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).), which ruled that discipline through the peer review system does not qualify as activity protected by SLAPP.[52] SLAPP has not been protecting the church for its choices to protect abusers instead of reporting their wrongdoing.
- Conclusion
This is just the beginning. In my next posts, I tell you what happened to those thousands of cases filed under the open SOLs. Some clergy were convicted. There were numerous civil cases. Some of those cases settled.
And many of the cases were stalled by the churches, who entered bankruptcy to stop all the lawsuits against them.
* I am grateful to Yashmeeta Sharma, Angelo Harlan De Crescenzo, Macie Nielsen, Harrison Epstein and Carressa Browder for their help with research and arguments.
[1] Rob Hayes, Director Roman Polanski is sued over more allegations of sexual assault of a minor, ABC7, Mar. 13, 2024, https://abc7.com/roman-polanski-sued-over-allegations-of-sexual-assault-minor/14518538/#:; Derrick Bryson Taylor, Lawsuit Accusing Roman Polanski of 1973 Rape Is Settled, N.Y. Times, Oct. 23, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/arts/roman-polanski-rape-lawsuit-settlement.html.
[2] Hayes, supra, n. 1.
[3] Taylor, supra, n. 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Associated Press, Director Roman Polanski is sued over more allegations of sexual assault of a minor, Spectrum News, Mar. 12, 2024, https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/entertainment/2024/03/12/roman-polanski-trial-rape-lawsuit-2025.
[8] Lucy McGill and Rosaleen McElvaney, Adult and Adolescent Disclosures of Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparative Analysis, J Interpers Violence. 2022 Apr 28;38(1-2):NP1163–NP1186. doi: 10.1177/08862605221088278 (between 55 and 70% delay disclosure until adulthood).
[9] CHILD USA, D. Jurisdictions with No Criminal SOL, https://childusa.org/2024sol/.
[10] Marci A. Hamilton, A ‘window’ for victims of abuse, L.A. Times, Jul. 19, 2007, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jul-19-oe-hamilton19-story.html.
[11] Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
[12] Const. Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 3.
[13] Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
[14] Laura J. Nelson, As deadline looms, California’s institutions face thousands of childhood sexual abuse claims, L.A. Times, Dec. 28, 2022, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-28/child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-california-deadline-ab218; Ashley Powers, Catholic Church lobbies to avert sex abuse lawsuits, L.A. Times, Jul. 15, 2013, https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-jul-15-la-me-church-bill-20130715-story.html
[15] Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.1, CHILD USA, F. Jurisdictions that Revived Expired Civil SOL, https://childusa.org/2024sol/.
[16] Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.1, CHILD USA, National Overview of Statutes of Limitation (SOLs) for Child Sex Abuse, Mar. 7, 2024, https://childusa.org/2024sol/.
[17] Nelson, supra, n. 14.
[18] Nelson, supra, n. 14.
[19] Patrick McGreevy, California grants more time for filing child sexual abuse allegations under new law, L.A.Times, Oct. 13, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-13/child-sexual-abuse-allegations-extension-filing-allegations-california-law
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Nelson, supra, n. 14.
[23] Id.
[24] Alejandra Molina, Catholic Church in California grapples with over 3,000 lawsuits alleging abuse, Wash. Post, May 30, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2023/05/30/catholic-church-california-grapples-with-over-3000-lawsuits-alleging-abuse/; Nina Singh-Hudson, California Catholic Church Struggles Amid Overwhelming Wave of Sexual Abuse Lawsuits, Hoodline, May 30, 2023, https://hoodline.com/2023/05/california-catholic-church-struggles-amid-overwhelming-wave-of-sexual-abuse-lawsuits/.
[25] Candice Nguyen et al., Reckoning, NBC Bay Area, Mar. 2, 2024, https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/reckoning/3458889/.
[26] Nelson, supra, n. 14.
[27] CHILD USA, E. Jurisdictions with No Civil SOL (for at least some child sex abuse claims), https://childusa.org/2024sol/.
[28] CHILD USA, C. Reform Bills Introduced in Legislature, https://childusa.org/2024sol/.
[29] Letter to Honorable Members of the Assembly Committee on judiciary from Marci Hamilton & Kathryn Robb, April 10, 2023, https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04.10-CA-1547-Testimony-.pdf (emphasis added).
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Leslie C. Griffin, An Introduction to Sexual Abuse in Catholic Massachusetts, https://childusa.org/leslie-griffin-on-sexual-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/.
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Cal. Penal Code § 11166 (West); See also CHILDUSA, Mandatory Reporting Laws, California, https://childusa.org/law/california/california-mandatory-reporting-laws/.
[38] Cal. Penal Code § 11166, 11166.01 (West).
[39] California Bill Would Require Clergy To Report Child Sex Abuse Disclosed in Confession, Feb. 28, 2019, https://laist.com/shows/airtalk/california-bill-would-require-clergy-to-report-child-sex-abuse-disclosed-in-confession.
[40] Id..
[41] Conley v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of San Francisco, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 1129 (2000).
[42] Id. at 1133.
[43] Id. at 1132.
[44] Emens v. California Cath. Conf., No. B297322, 2020 WL 7066264, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2020), as modified on denial of reh’g (Dec. 24, 2020).
[45] Id, at *4–5.
[46] Id.
[47] Id. at *7.
[48] Ratcliff v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of Los Angeles, 278 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (Ct. App. 2021).
[49] Id. at 230.
[50] Id. at 233.
[51] Id.
[52] Ratcliff v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of Los Angeles, 494 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2021); Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., 11 Cal. 5th 995, 1004, 491 P.3d 1058, 1062 (2021).