WASHINGTON — Advocates and child sex abuse survivors will stand before members of the Maryland House of Delegates on Thursday to testify. The judiciary committee will have a bill before them that would remove the statute of limitations for all child sex abuse cases.
Currently, Maryland law says a victim has until age 38 to file a civil lawsuit. However, those who are older than 25 when they come forward must prove gross negligence, which is something notoriously difficult to prove.
Maryland Delegate C.T. Wilson of Charles County was part of the negotiations for the current law and has sponsored the proposed bill. The delegate has been open about the sexual abuse he experienced as a child.
“I don’t believe [38-years-old] is enough time. That was a negotiation I had with the Catholic Church at the time, as well as the gross negligence, and I’m not negotiating anymore,” said Wilson.
Delegate Wilson says House Bill 687, which will be before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday for a hearing, would remove the statute of limitations.
The bill would make it so a child sex abuse victim could file a lawsuit no matter their age. Wilson is also adding what’s called a “two-year look back window” to include anyone precluded by the statute of limitations...
Only the legislative process is patterned after the board game of Shutes and Ladders.
ReplyDeletehttps://mcadvocate.com/15430/news/board-of-trustees-open-meetings-act-compliance-questioned-cleared-with-minor-violation-issued/ sheds light on a Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board Opinion article by Montgomery College Staff Writer Anna Sohn that mentions an anonymous complainant:
ReplyDelete"The anonymous complainant had not requested the announcements or statements from the Board; instead, they had relied on what they could find online to make their claims." Since when does the Open Meetings Act or compliance board allow anonymous complainants?
The complaints are not anonymous. The reporter did not inquire who filed the complaint.
DeleteThe current Chair of the Open Meetings Compliance Board refuses to name complaintants because he says he give the person filing the request for review too much attention. All one has to do is ask the Open Meetings Compliance Board for the name of the complaintant. The name is public information and available to anyone that requests the information.
The current OMA Chair has made a personal decision to exclude the name of the person filing a complaint on the Opinion which is a bizarre position for someone to take who is supposed to be promoting open government. He is a Hogan appointee.
That article is misleading and it's clear the reporter does not understand the law - and didn't try to find anyone who does.
DeleteThe bigger question is: Do those who authored the law understand it?
Delete