New York May Ease Statute of Limitations for Decades-Old Child Sex Abuse Claims
Bill Would Ease Path to Court for Yeshiva U. Victims
By Paul Berger Published March 07, 2013, issue of March 15, 2013.
Adults abused as children decades ago in New York could file civil lawsuits against their abusers and the institutions that employed them, if a national surge of legislative reform reaches Albany.
Advocates for child sex abuse victims say that this year, the prospects look good for a bill that sank four times previously following strong opposition from Catholic and ultra-Orthodox groups. If passed, the legislation could ease the way for a slew of lawsuits against Jewish and Catholic institutions accused of failing to report accounts of child sex abuse to law enforcement authorities.
“I’ve never been more optimistic we can succeed in 2013,” the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, said.
Yeshiva University may also be casting a wary eye toward Albany as it continues to investigate a scandal involving abuse allegations first reported by the Forward and dating back four decades.
Read the Forward’s COMPLETE COVERAGE of the allegations of abuse against staffers at Yeshiva U. high school.
The bill, known as the Child Victims Act, still faces a real test in the state senate where a key Democrat, Jeffrey Klein, indicated he would not support it….
Sixth Circuit Rejects Commonsense Approach to Child Pornography Restitution
By James R. Marsh on March 8, 2013
Last week, the Sixth Circuit issued this confusing decision on child pornography restitution.
The Court held that the child pornography restitution statute contains both a cause-in-fact requirement—i.e., a showing that the defendant’s conduct actually caused the victim’s losses—and a requirement that the cause be proximate.
The Court found that “the statute still allows victims to collect more restitution than under earlier and concurrent restitution statutes. The statute expands the definition of victims and the categories of losses for which victims can receive restitution and makes restitution mandatory. In addition, the list of recoverable losses that the statute provides confirms the breadth of what is a foreseeable consequence of defendants’ actions.”
The Court concluded that “a proximate cause showing is necessary for restitution awards under § 2259, meaning the losses must be both “directly attributable” to the defendant’s offense, and “reasonably foreseeable.”….