During the early hours of morning of the final day of the legislative session, Delaware's lawmakers considered a bill that's been referred to as the state's "Child Victims Act Part 2."
It would have eliminated the remaining statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse victims to take civil action against abusers and neglectful institutions, many from prior to 2007.
But the bill was stricken by its sponsor, State Rep. Tim Dukes (R-Laurel), who said, "it'd be the wrong thing" to move the bill forward with an amendment added in the senate at nearly 5 a.m.
"We felt it was only the right thing to do, would be to strike the bill" he said. "(The) amendment ...really gutted the bill, and it weakened the hope for victims."
HB 75 would have been the first significant update to Delaware’s Child Victims Act since it passed in 2007.
The law in 2007 repealed the statute of limitations in civil suits against child abusers, but was not fully retroactive. It gave victims of childhood sexual abuse a two year “window” from 2007 to 2009 to take civil action against abusers in cases previously barred by law.
And advocates for HB 75 argue the window needs to be lifted completely, as victims often don't forward until years after abuse occurred.
What did the amendment do?
The amendment was introduced at the end of session. But similar changes were suggested during committee in April, and largely reflect greater protection for institutional defendants.
The amendment added caps on compensation victims can receive.
It also increased evidence requirements for civil suits that happened before July 9 2007, in cases when the accused abuser is deceased or unable to participate in the case.
The amendment said that victims in these cases would need to provide evidence to corroborate their claims, or a previous admission from the abuser. This provision would come into play in instances like when a victim sues an employer who they argue should have known or stopped abuse from happening.
Dukes said if the amendment had just included caps on compensation, he would not have stricken the bill.
But the requirements for evidence surpassed what HB 75 originally asked for, and "almost gave the perpetrator more rights than the victim."
The amendment also directed that liability of an institution where abuse took place and the abuser be considered as separate, and placed separate damage caps for perpetrators and institutions.
Senator Nicole Poore, HB 75’s Senate sponsor, argued that asking courts to sort defendants into categories of accountability and invites litigation, and "injects uncertainty where Delaware law is currently clear."
She joined five Republicans to vote against the amendment. The bill passed in the senate but was stricken in the House.
The changes to HB 75 were sponsored by Senator Dave Sokola, who is retiring after 36 years in office when his term ends this year.
Dukes said he and others who worked on the bill "just decided the best thing to do was would be to strike the bill and to start over."
