With just days left in California’s legislative session, lawmakers in Sacramento are scrambling to broker a last-minute compromise over how the state handles a wave of child sexual abuse lawsuits that has pushed many school districts and counties to the brink of financial strain.
The debate pits the interests of abuse survivors against the fiscal realities facing local governments and schools, which have paid out billions of dollars in settlements and rising insurance costs since California loosened the statute of limitations for these claims in 2019. Legislative leaders are trying to find a middle ground before the session ends, but talks remain unresolved as the clock winds down.
At issue is how to fairly compensate survivors of abuse that occurred years or even decades ago while preventing local agencies — many already operating with thin budgets — from being pushed into financial collapse. A similar effort to reach consensus fell apart in the final hours of last year’s session.
Groups representing survivors are firmly opposed to any changes that would make it harder for victims to pursue claims, and they have mobilized to protect the current law. Meanwhile, associations representing schools and counties argue that without reform, the ripple effects will hurt the very children the education and social service systems are meant to protect.
“It’s impossible to choose between the future education of California students and meeting the needs of survivors,” said Dr. Debra Schade, president of the California School Boards Association, one of the organizations pushing for a resolution. “But if we don’t do something soon, the future of our public school system in California is at risk.”
A balancing act
Local governments and school districts are asking lawmakers to consider capping the amount of money survivors can be awarded in damages and to require stronger evidence from those who come forward more than two decades after the alleged abuse occurred. Both ideas have drawn sharp opposition from survivor advocates, who say placing a dollar limit on trauma is offensive and unrealistic, especially since children and their families rarely keep detailed records of abuse.
A June proposal drafted by the office of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, reviewed by CalMatters, indicated Assembly leaders were weighing both ideas — a cap on payouts and a higher evidentiary bar for older claims.
Supporters of that approach argue that decades-old cases often involve witnesses or perpetrators who have died and records that have been lost or destroyed, putting public agencies at an unfair disadvantage when defending themselves in court.
Faith Borges, a lobbyist representing local government insurance pools known as joint powers authorities, said counties and schools recognize survivors deserve justice but must also protect public resources meant to serve current students and vulnerable residents.
“It’s been a difficult needle to thread,” Borges said.
Advocates for survivors counter that government agencies have significant legal resources — including in-house attorneys and access to institutional records — while most victims rely on private attorneys to pursue their cases.
“It is a towering immorality to make the traumatized survivors of child rape, beatings, and sex abuse pay the bills for our negligence,” said Ed Howard, senior attorney with the Children’s Advocacy Institute, during a Sacramento news conference. Advocacy groups have been working alongside the influential Consumer Attorneys of California, which has donated more than $350,000 to state lawmakers this session.
“It is our fault what happened to them. Not theirs,” Howard said. “That is grotesque — that a child would have to have a higher burden of proof to get compensation for crimes committed against them by people we selected to care for them.”
One survivor, a 25-year-old woman who asked to be identified only by her first name, Suzie, said she hopes financial accountability will push schools to make lasting changes. She said pursuing justice meant confronting her former fourth grade teacher and facing a team of attorneys hired by the Mountainview School District who challenged her account of being groomed and molested.
“I just became super suicidal, like, when I was only eight or nine,” Suzie said. “I couldn’t tell my parents that I was scared of going to school, so I was like, at such a young age, the bad guy.”
She and five other former students sued the district, and a jury awarded them $48 million in damages last April — with the district responsible for more than $36 million and the former teacher held liable for the rest.
“I wish a lot of things wouldn’t have happened to me,” Suzie said. “But also, with the financial compensation, there’s going to be, maybe, room for growth for [the district]. And a definite change. Because it cannot happen again.”
A deal that didn’t hold
Last year, state Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, tried to negotiate a compromise, but the effort collapsed after schools and counties objected that Senate Bill 577 didn’t include caps on damages. Survivor advocates, meanwhile, were angered that the bill would have blocked future claims tied to abuse at Los Angeles County’s now-closed MacLaren Children’s Center. The county has already agreed to pay $4 billion to settle roughly 6,800 abuse claims connected to that facility, some dating back to 1959.
Rivas ultimately set the bill aside, hoping for a broader agreement this year. But the same disagreements persist: the speaker’s office remains open to discussing damage caps to protect public agencies financially, while Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón and her staff have pushed back against any limits that could weaken survivors’ legal options, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
In a statement, Limón said the Senate “remains committed to maintaining access to justice for all survivors” while also acknowledging the financial pressures facing public entities. Though the two chambers have been negotiating for weeks and are reportedly close to an agreement, no deal had been finalized as of this week.
Mounting costs strain local budgets
A 2024 report commissioned by the Legislature found that thousands of lawsuits have been filed since Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 218 in 2019, which extended the age limit for survivors to file claims from 26 to 40 and gave adults who later realize they were abused as children five years — up from three — to take legal action. The law also created a temporary three-year window allowing survivors to revive previously expired claims.
The resulting wave of litigation is projected to cost California school districts up to $3 billion, while counties face even steeper liabilities, according to the report. Los Angeles County alone anticipates paying roughly $3 billion to resolve about 3,000 claims tied to abuse in its foster care system, youth shelters and juvenile detention facilities dating back to the 1950s.
Because California’s insurance market largely collapsed for public agencies in the 1970s, most counties and school districts now rely on self-funded joint powers authorities rather than private insurers. Unlike private insurance companies, these pools are funded directly by taxpayer dollars, meaning a surge in claims can quickly strain already tight budgets — particularly for smaller or rural districts with few or no abuse claims of their own.
Several districts report having to cut staff, delay campus repairs and put off basic maintenance, such as replacing outdated air conditioning systems, in order to keep up with rising insurance premiums and legal settlements.
Eric Dill, associate superintendent for the Poway Unified School District, said his district has trimmed $10 million annually from its budget over the past three years — cuts that have primarily affected staffing, programs and maintenance — in order to set aside funds for underinsured or uninsured claims. Over four years, the district has spent $7.5 million on insurance premiums and self-insurance contributions, the equivalent of about 75 teacher salaries and benefits.
“It is very real that today’s students are suffering from a lack of services that could otherwise be provided if we could use those general fund dollars to put back into the classroom,” Dill said.
While the current negotiations center on child sexual abuse claims, representatives for schools and counties are pushing to expand any new rules to cover other types of civil liability lawsuits as well.
Survivors say process shuts them out
Advocates for abuse survivors argue that negotiating a deal behind closed doors, without going through the normal legislative process, denies victims a chance to be heard. Under standard procedure, survivors could testify before legislative committees about their experiences.
“We’re having to ask survivors to speak into a microphone and hope that the folks who are making the decisions in the building hear our voices,” said Jennifer Rodriguez, executive director of the Youth Law Center, during the Sacramento press conference. “That’s not a democratic process.”
Howard, of the Children’s Advocacy Institute, acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue, saying that any proposal altering existing protections for survivors likely wouldn’t hold up under the full scrutiny of the standard legislative process.
Lawmakers have until midnight on Aug. 31 to finalize legislation before the session ends for the year.
Original source: CalMatters
