The Laws That Should Protect Our Children
Current Civil SOL in a nutshell
SOL vs. perp: +3 years from majority = Age 21 SOL vs. employer: +3 years from majority = Age 21
Majority Tolling: √ Age 18 Discovery Tolling: √ Liberal (+3 years)
SOL: 3 years from majority or liberal discovery whichever is later. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.340 (1)(a)-(c)
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.340 (1) “ All claims or causes of action based on intentional conduct brought by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced within the later of the following periods: (a) Within three years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition; (b) Within three years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by said act; or (c) Within three years of the time the victim discovered that the act caused the injury for which the claim is brought: PROVIDED, That the time limit for commencement of an action under this section is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen years.”)
C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999). (Statute of limitations encompassed causes of action sounding in negligence against parties who did not themselves directly perpetrate acts of childhood sexual abuse, but who allegedly failed to protect child victims, overruling Jamerson v. Vandiver, 85 Wash.App. 564, 934 P.2d 1199).
- Majority, yes. 18.
a. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.340 (1) (PROVIDED, That the time limit for commencement of an action under this section is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen years.”)
- Discovery, yes, liberal.
a. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.340 (1) (b)-(c) (“ (b)Within three years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by said act; or (c) Within three years of the time the victim discovered that the act caused the injury for which the claim is brought”)
b. Hollmann v. Corcoran, 89 Wn. App. 323, 949 P.2d 386, 1997 Wash. App. LEXIS 2127 (1997).The statute of limitations is tolled until the victim of childhood sexual abuse in fact discovers the causal connection between the defendant’s acts and the injuries for which the claim is brought.
c. C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 19999)(“limitations applicable to intentional acts of sexual abuse by perp extends to negligence claims against non-perps based on their contribution to the harm. “)
Current Criminal SOL in a nutshell
Age 30 APPLICATION: All claims not barred as of 2013
Victim’s 30th birthday for most crimes. Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.04.080 (1)(c)
Rev. Code Wash. (A.R.C.W.) § 9A.04.080 (1) (c) (“Violations of the following statutes, when committed against a victim under the age of eighteen, may be prosecuted up to the victim’s thirtieth birthday: RCW 9A.44.040 (rape in the first degree), 9A.44.050 (rape in the second degree), 9A.44.073 (rape of a child in the first degree), 9A.44.076 (rape of a child in the second degree), 9A.44.079 (rape of a child in the third degree), 9A.44.083 (child molestation in the first degree), 9A.44.086 (child molestation in the second degree), 9A.44.089 (child molestation in the third degree), 9A.44.100(1)(b) (indecent liberties), 9A.64.020 (incest), or 9.68A.040 (sexual exploitation of a minor)”).
Age of Majority / Age of Consent / Age of Marriage
Age of Majority: 18. See, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.28.010.
Age of Consent: 16. See, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.44.079.
Age of Marriage with Parental Consent: 17 (under 17 with judicial consent).
Age of Marriage without Parental Consent: 18.
See, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 26.04.010, 26.04.210.
Medical Neglect Statute
CIVIL MEDICAL NEGLECT STATUTE
[A] person who is being furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science prac¬ti¬tioner shall not be considered, for that reason alone, a neglected person for the purposes of this chapter. Revised Code of Washington §26.44.020(18) (on reporting obligations)
[A child who] is abused or neglected as defined in chapter 26.44 RCW by a person legally responsible for the care of the child [may be adjudicated as dependent]. Revised Code of Washington §13.34.030(5)(b) (26.44 RCW contains a religious exemption.)
Nothing in RCW 62.05.010 through 72.05.210 shall be construed as limiting the right of a parent, guardian or person standing in loco parentis in providing any medical or other remedial treatment recognized or permitted under the laws of this state. Revised Code of Washington §72.05.200 (deals with institutionalized children)
CRIMINAL MEDICAL NEGLECT STATUTE
WASHINGTON defense to criminal mistreatment and second-degree murder
It is the intent of the legislature that a person who, in good faith, is furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned. Revised Code of Washington §9A.42.005
Note: Washington has in effect a religious defense to second-degree murder as well be¬cause RCW §9A.32.050(1)(b) requires the prosecutor to prove that another felony has been committed in order to prove second-degree murder and criminal mis¬treatment is the only felony that could be charged for medical neglect.
Washington Church of the Firstborn parents tried to raise the statute as a defense when they were charged with homicide for withholding medical care from their son. They argued it was unconstitutional for the state to exempt Christian Scientists from criminal liability and to prosecute them for the same behavior as the Christian Scientists.
The court refused to dismiss the charges, ruling that the legislature could have had “a rational basis” for exempting Christian Scientists and members of no other religion from liability in that Christian Science spiritual healers are licensed (untrue) and those healers are required to report child abuse and neglect to state child protection services. The latter is technically true, but it is unlikely the healers report medical neglect since both the civil and criminal codes say that children getting Christian Science spiritual treatment of illnesses in lieu of medical care are not neglected. State v. Swezey, Okanogan County Superior Court Memorandum Order denying Motion to Dismiss case #12-100045-8 (2012)
Religous Liberty Statute
Religious liberty statute that could put children at risk
No law as of January 2014