Maryland Proposed Legislation

On March 18, 2019, the Maryland House of Delegates voted 135 to 3 to approve House Bill 687 and advance it to the Maryland Senate for further legislative action. The Senate has scheduled a hearing on the measure for Thursday, March 28th. Some proponents of the legislation have expressed doubt as to whether the Maryland Senate will vote in favor of House Bill 687.

House Bill 687:

• adds a definition of “sexual abuse” as it applies to a child,
• eliminates the statute of limitations for civil actions based on “...an alleged incident or incidents of sexual abuse that occurred when the victim was a minor” and
• provides for a two-year “window of time,” beginning on October 1, 2019 and ending on September 30, 2021, during which survivors of childhood sexual abuse – whose claims are currently time-barred – may file a lawsuit against the perpetrator and any responsible institution(s).

This last provision is of particular significance for older survivors of childhood sexual abuse (over 37) whose claims, because of the passage of time and other circumstances, are currently time-barred. If enacted, older survivors who may have been reluctant to bring claims, or were unaware that were able to bring such claims as to responsible non-perpetrators, will have an opportunity to do so and seek justice.

UPDATE: April 2, 2019 - Bill Heard by Judicial Committee

On Thursday, March 29th, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee conducted hearings on House Bill 687. Many abuse survivors testified before the Committee including C.T. Wilson, a legislator who is an abuse survivor and a sponsor of Bill 687. If the Bill is approved by the Committee, it will proceed to the full Senate for consideration and a possible vote.

Included in the discussions concerning Bill 687 is a controversy concerning 2017 legislation that was enacted in Maryland extending the time within which a survivor of child sex abuse may bring a civil claim. Under prior law, a survivor had until age 25 to bring an action – the 2017 legislation extended it to age 38. However, the 2017 legislation included a “statute of repose” which appears to have been added without any apparent discussion, deliberation or explanation. The controversy and purported complication caused by the inclusion of the statute of repose will have to be addressed if Bill 687 is to be finalized.