Nittany Lions, Clergy, and Scouts, Oh My! Harmonizing the Interplay Between Memory Repression and Statutes of Limitations in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation

Abstract

Day in and day out, sexual abuse dispossesses children of their youthful innocence. Part and parcel of this crisis imperiling America’s youth is the persistent failure among adults and institutions to lawfully fulfill their protective duties. Unfortunately, once children are practicably able to disclose the evils that underlie their resultant trauma and pursue civil recourse against all culpable parties, statutes of limitations often seismically compound the issue by denying access to our judicial system. But it is not merely the general existence of statutes of limitations that is problematic. Rather, the statute of limitations problems addressed in this note relate to how legislatures poorly handle circumstances that are exclusive to child sexual abuse litigation.

This note exposes a dual threat that precludes many child sexual abuse survivors from attaining the full measure of justice. The threshold problem addressed in this note is that child sexual abuse survivors are vulnerable to unconsciously repressing memories of their sexual abuse, yet many legislatures fail to account for how such realities render the “timely” initiation of civil claims manifestly unfeasible. Paradoxically, the second problem arises when legislatures strive to remedy the threshold problem. To wit, some legislatures take curative action by redrafting tolling provisions to recognize memory repression. However, facially, textual ambiguities within only authorize its application against perpetrators, not third party defendants whose neglectful conduct enabled the abuse to occur and continue. My binary solution resonates well with what reason and logic dictate. I first argue that memory repression is a legitimate psychological condition that is supported by a wealth of research and, thus, must be appropriately reflected as a basis for tolling statutes of limitations. My second argument advises that when a legislature takes that appropriate first step by acknowledging memory repression, it must then ensure that its tolling provision applies to perpetrators and third party defendants with equal force. Indeed, child sexual abuse survivors deserve these reforms.