A California child sexual abuse lawyer helps a survivor, or a parent acting for a child, bring a civil lawsuit for money damages against the person who caused the abuse and, where the facts support it, against a school, church, youth program or other institution that failed to protect the child. Whether a claim exists depends on the dates and the facts.
What a Civil Child Sexual Abuse Claim Is, and How It Differs from a Criminal Case
A civil claim belongs to the survivor. It is a lawsuit filed by the survivor, or by a parent or guardian on behalf of a minor, against a defendant (the person or institution being sued). The survivor decides whether to bring it, whether to settle it and when to stop.
A criminal case is different. It is brought by the State of California through a district attorney, and the survivor is a witness rather than a party. Prosecutors decide whether to charge, what to charge and whether to accept a plea. A criminal case can lead to incarceration or probation. A civil case cannot; its purpose is compensation for harm, and in some cases an outcome that formally recognizes an institution's failures.
Because the two systems are independent, a civil claim can proceed even if:
- no one was ever arrested or charged,
- a criminal case was dismissed or ended in acquittal,
- the person who committed the abuse has died, or
- the survivor never reported to police.
The burden of proof is also lower in a civil case. A fuller comparison is in our guide to civil vs. criminal sexual abuse cases.
California's Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Abuse: What the Law Currently Says
A statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. For childhood sexual abuse, the governing statute is Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.1, and the rule that applies depends first on when the abuse occurred.
Abuse on or after January 1, 2024. Section 340.1 now states that there is no time limit for an action for damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault. That applies to claims against the person who committed the abuse and against any person or entity that owed the child a duty of care and whose negligent or intentional act was a legal cause of the abuse. This change came from AB 452, effective January 1, 2024. AB 452 applies only to abuse occurring on and after that date. It did not revive any claim that had already expired, and it did not remove the deadline for earlier abuse.
Abuse on or before December 31, 2023. These claims are governed by the law as it read on December 31, 2023, which is the framework set by AB 218 (2019). Under that framework, a survivor generally has until the later of:
- age 40, or
- five years from the date the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that a psychological injury or illness occurring after age 18 was caused by the abuse.
The second branch is often called the delayed discovery rule. It exists because many survivors do not connect later difficulties, such as anxiety, depression or problems in relationships, to abuse in childhood until well into adulthood.
AB 218 also opened a three-year revival window for claims that had previously expired. That window closed on December 31, 2022. It is no longer available, but its closing does not affect the age-40 and five-year-discovery rules described above, which still apply to abuse before 2024.
A survivor who is 40 or older when the lawsuit is filed must have certificates of merit filed: one signed by the attorney, and one by a licensed California mental health practitioner who has interviewed the survivor and is not treating them. The California sexual abuse statute of limitations guide sets out the deadlines in more detail, including those for abuse that happened in adulthood.
Who Can Be Held Liable: Individuals and Institutions
The person who committed the abuse is the most direct defendant. In many California cases, though, the more significant question is whether an organization made the abuse possible.
California's general negligence rule, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714, makes everyone responsible for injury caused by a lack of ordinary care. Section 340.1 applies that idea to childhood abuse by expressly allowing claims against any person or entity that owed the child a duty of care. Institutional claims usually rest on one or more of these theories:
- Negligent hiring: bringing someone into a role with access to children without reasonable screening, or despite warning signs.
- Negligent supervision: failing to reasonably oversee an employee or volunteer, or the children in the organization's care.
- Negligent retention: keeping someone in a position after the organization knew, or should have known, of a risk.
- Failure to protect: not acting on reports, complaints or circumstances that called for action.
The kinds of institutions that appear in these cases include public and private school districts, religious organizations, youth-serving nonprofits, sports and recreation programs, and foster care agencies. Our guides on institutional sexual abuse and school sexual abuse cover these settings more closely. Not every case has an institutional defendant, and the facts, not the type of organization, determine who can properly be named.
Public entities. Many institutions in these cases, such as public school districts, are government bodies. For most claims against government, California's Government Claims Act requires a written claim to be presented to the entity before suing, with contents described in Cal. Gov. Code § 910. Childhood sexual abuse claims are treated differently:
- Local public entities (for example, school districts, counties and cities): claims brought under § 340.1 are exempt from the claim-presentation requirement, whatever the date of the abuse, and a local entity cannot substitute its own claim procedure.
- The State of California and its agencies: the exemption reaches only abuse that occurred on or after January 1, 2024.