SANTA FE (NM)
Taos News [Taos NM]
February 5, 2025
By Esteban Candelaria
Lex Garcia says she was raped for two years by her teacher at a Rio Rancho high school.
During a time when she said she should have been preoccupied with the normal worries of a teenager, Garcia said she was instead embroiled in a manipulative relationship with her instructor, with whom she worked as a lab assistant.
It took 15 years for Garcia to acknowledge to herself she had been sexually exploited, and even longer “to admit it to anyone that could help me.” That time, the now-33-year-old said, far exceeded the timeline currently allotted by law for victims to come forward to make a civil claim, a problem Garcia said would be addressed by a bill on lawmakers’ table to eliminate the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.
“Trauma is not tied to a [timed] clock,” Garcia told lawmakers of the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday. “It’s layered, it’s nonlinear, and the law cannot dictate how long it takes for someone to share their truth about abuse and seek their justice.”
The New Mexican normally does not identify victims of child sexual abuse, but has in this case because Garcia has made clear she wants her story publicly shared in hopes of changing the system.
She was one of almost a dozen child sexual abuse victims and advocates who turned out in support of House Bill 73, a bipartisan effort that would remove the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, allowing people to open civil cases seeking damages for personal injury at any time. The bill would not impact the criminal statute of limitations for child sex abuse.
Under current law, victims have until three years after first disclosing the incident to medical or mental health providers, or until they turn 24, whichever comes last, to file claims. The bill would retroactively apply to all victims.
Advocates argue the bill would encourage victims to come forward when they are ready.
“Survivors of sexual abuse do not come forward until 52, on average, and allowing them the space to come to the courthouse so they can have their stories litigated and heard by a jury of their peers just seems fair,” attorney Theresa Hacsi said.
Changing the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse has come up in multiple iterations over the years. HB 73 mirrors a Senate bill in 2023, which passed its first committee but failed in its second.
HB 73 sponsor Rep. Marianna Anaya, D-Albuquerque, emphasized the bipartisan effort this year in a written statement, arguing lawmakers signing onto the bill “send the message that addressing sexual assault is a priority for this body.”
The bill unanimously passed the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday, receiving little opposition from lawmakers.
“I think the strong, positive response we saw in committee today shows a desire [to] prioritize the needs of survivors of sexual abuse over insurance company profits,” Anaya wrote.
That said, public agencies expressed some concern about the potential losses of new cases being opened.
Martin Esquivel, general counsel for the New Mexico Public Schools Insurance Authority, said the agency supported the intent of the bill and asked for lawmakers to make clear the bill does not make public institutions liable to civil lawsuits.
“We certainly don’t mean to minimize that harm and the importance of this issue,” he said. “… Obviously, there are some concerns about the cost of litigating cases that are 25 or 30 years old.”
A New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department analysis argued lawsuits stemming from children in state custody or from a judge ruling the agency failed to protect a child could increase under HB 73, thus potentially increasing agency costs.
“This impact could then lead to significant additional litigation costs and potential damages levied against CYFD,” the department wrote. “Additional litigation would also have the downstream effect of creating a further burden on CYFD legal staff and general resources.”
Hacsi argued the bill would not apply to public institutions because they have immunity from suits unless expressly waived by a judge, such as under the state’s civil rights act.
“This is a statute of limitations regarding injuries,” she said. “It does not waive sovereign immunity for a governmental entity.”
This article first appeared in The Santa Fe New Mexican, a sister paper of the Taos News.