The Laws That Should Protect Our Children
Current Civil SOL in a nutshell
SOL vs. perp, employer: + 7 from accrual (narrow discovery) or + 4 from leaving dependency of abuser whichever is later; +2 from Majority where accrual occurred during Majority
Majority Tolling: √ – Age 18 Discovery Tolling: √ – Narrow
SOL: + 7 from accrual (narrow discovery) or + 4 from leaving dependency of abuser whichever is later; +2 from Majority where accrual occurred during Majority
Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-2-4 (b) “An action for injury to a person that results from the sexual abuse of a child must be commenced within the later of: (1) seven (7) years after the cause of action accrues; or (2) four (4) years after the person ceases to be a dependent of the person alleged to have performed the sexual abuse.”
TOLLING: Majority, yes. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 1-1-4-5(8) “Infant” or “minor” means a person less than eighteen (18) years of age. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-6-1 (“A person who is under legal disabilities when the cause of action accrues may bring the action within two (2) years after the disability is removed.) (Majority is “legal disability w/in meaning of statute).
Discovery, yes, narrow. Doe v. United Methodist Church, 673 N.E.2d 839, 842 (Ind. 1996) (“Under Indiana’s discovery rule, a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have discovered that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another. … For a cause of action to accrue, it is not necessary that the full extent of the damage be known or even ascertainable but only that some ascertainable damage has occurred.”); The discovery rule applies when determining the accrual date for all tort actions. UNR-Rohn v. Summit Bank, 687 N.E.2d 235, 1997 Ind. App. LEXIS 1558 (1997).
Current Criminal SOL in a nutshell
None for level 1 and 2 felonies committed on or after June 30, 2014. None for A felonies. Victim’s 31st birthday for Child molesting, Vicarious sexual gratification, Child solicitation, Child seduction and Incest. Other sex offenses not otherwise listed: +10 years from commission or +4 from victim’s leaving abuser’s dependence.
Removed for level 1 and 2 felonies committed on or after June 30, 2014. Removed for A felonies. Victim’s 31st birthday for Child molesting, Vicarious sexual gratification, Child solicitation, Child seduction and Incest. Other sex offenses not otherwise listed: +10 years from commission or +4 from victim’s leaving abuser’s dependence. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2 (c), (e), (m).
Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2 (c)(“A prosecution for a Class A felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 2014) or a Level 1 felony or Level 2 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014) may be commenced at any time.”) (Level 2 felonies committed before June 20, 2014 would then fall into SOL rubric of either sub (m) or sub (e).) Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2 (m)(“A prosecution for a sex offense listed in IC 11-8-8-4.5 that is committed against a child and that is not: (1) a Class A felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 2014) or a Level 1 felony or Level 2 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014); or (2) listed in subsection (e) is barred unless commenced within ten (10) years after the commission of the offense, or within four (4) years after the person ceases to be a dependent of the person alleged to have committed the offense, whichever occurs later.”) Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2 (e)(“A prosecution for the following offenses is barred unless commenced before the date that the alleged victim of the offense reaches thirty-one (31) years of age: (1) IC 35-42-4-3(a) (Child molesting); (2) IC 35-42-4-5 (Vicarious sexual gratification); (3) IC 35-42-4-6 (Child solicitation); (4) IC 35-42-4-7 (Child seduction); (5) IC 35-46-1-3 (Incest).”)
Age of Majority / Age of Consent / Age of Marriage
Age of Majority: 18. See, Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-6-2.
Age of Consent: 16. See, Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-4-3.
Age of Marriage with Parental Consent: 15 with proof of pregnancy.
Age of Marriage without Parental Consent: 18.
See, Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1.
Medical Neglect Statute
CIVIL MEDICAL NEGLECT STATUTE
If a parent, guardian, or custodian fails to provide specific medical treatment for a child because of the legitimate and gen¬uine practice of religious beliefs of the parent, guardian, or custodian, a rebuttable presumption arises that the child is not a child in need of services because of the failure. However, this pre¬sumption does not. . . apply to situa¬tions in which the life or health of a child is in serious danger. Indiana Code §31-34-1-14
In addition, nothing in this chapter limits the lawful practice or teaching of religious beliefs. Indiana Code §31-34-1-15
CRIMINAL MEDICAL NEGLECT STATUTE
INDIANA defense to criminal neglect and nonsupport It is a defense to the criminal offense of neglect of a dependent that the accused person, in the legitimate practice of his/her religious belief, provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer, in lieu of medical care, to his/her dependent. Indiana Code §35-46-1-4
It is a defense to criminal nonsupport that the accused person, in the legitimate practice of his religious belief, provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer, in lieu of medical care, to his dependent child. Indiana Code §35-46-1-5
Note: Several Faith Assembly parents who withheld medical care on religious grounds were charged in Indiana for deaths of children. In Hall v. State, 493 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 1986), the Indiana Supreme Court upheld Faith Assembly parents’ convic¬tions for reckless homicide and rejected their argument that the defense to neglect insu¬lated them from the charge. The Court ruled that parents had a religious defense to neglect that created “a substantial risk of death” and resulted in “serious bodily injury,” but not to reckless homicide resulting in the actual death of a dependent.
In Bergmann v. State, 486 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 1985) an Indiana Court of Appeals upheld Faith Assembly parents’ convictions for reckless homicide and neglect. The Court ruled that the parents had the burden of proving to the jury that they provided prayer treatment in the legitimate practice of their religious belief, that the jury was evidently not convinced, and the Court “cannot disturb the jury’s conclusion.” The Court also pointed out that the Bergmanns had not raised objections at trial to the jury instruc¬tions or the prosecutor’s characterization of the defense.
Religous Liberty Statute
Religious liberty statute that could put children at risk
RFRA Proposed Changes [PDF Document]
Current RFRA [PDF Document]
2015 ENACTED BILL: INDIANA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (S.B. 568)
Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act – Introduced 1/20/15
Source: //iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568 View Bill Text as PDF View Bill Fiscal Summary
SENATE BILL No. 568 A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Read More Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, “burden” means an action that directly or indirectly:
(1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by a person; or
(2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person’s exercise of religion.
(b) The term includes:
(1) withholding a benefit from a person;
(2) assessing a criminal, a civil, or an administrative penalty against a person; or
(3) excluding a person from a governmental program or denying a person access to a governmental facility. Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, “compelling governmental interest” means a governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.
Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, “exercise of religion” means the practice or observance of religion. (b) The term includes a person’s ability to:
(1) act; or
(2) refuse to act;
in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person’s sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, “person” means an individual, an association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a foundation, or any other legal entity.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, “state action” means:
(1) the implementation or application of a state or local law or policy; or
(2) the taking of any other action;
by the state or a political subdivision of the state.
Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is:
(1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.
Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:
(1) has been substantially burdened; or
(2) is likely to be substantially burdened;
by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation, or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.
(b) A person who asserts a claim or defense under subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief from a violation, or an impending violation, of section 6 of this chapter, including relief against the state or a political subdivision of the state. Appropriate relief under this subsection includes any of the following:
(1) Injunctive relief.
(2) Declaratory relief.
(3) Compensatory damages.
(4) Recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.
S.B. 127 – Religious Exemption in State and Local Contracts