The effort has began anew to give survivors of childhood sexual abuse and other types of sexual misconduct unlimited time to sue their abusers and the institutions that harbor them, as a state Senate committee voted 7-0 on Monday to advance the bill.

This time, though, proponents have deployed a package of bills designed to help future victims as well as those in the past through a novel legal maneuver.

Members of the Health & Human Services Committee heard stories from victim advocates and survivors about how children often do not disclose their abuse until later in life, and may develop a variety of mental health problems, including the desire to end their lives.

“I know today that addictions, self-destructive behaviors and suicide are all too common among rape victims,” said Jeb Barrett, the Denver leader of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, who himself survived childhood sex abuse. “At 81, I still deal with ADHD, PTSD, anxiety, hypervigilance, etc.” 

Currently in Colorado, victims of child sexual abuse generally have six years after they turn 18 to sue their abuser, and two years to file a claim against an organization, like the Catholic Church or Boy Scouts. Senate Bill 73 would redefine child sexual abuse and other offenses against adults and children as sexual misconduct, and then remove the time limit on civil legal action. The measure would only apply to incidents of future misconduct and those victims whose statute of limitations has not expired as of Jan. 1, 2022.

Parents may also bring a claim on behalf of their child. However, governmental immunity may continue to bar claims against public entities.

It is the latest version of a measure that began in 2020 and passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin. After the COVID-19 pandemic forced a hiatus in the legislative session, a Senate committee killed the bill in the final days before adjournment.

The action came at the request of one of its Senate sponsors, Julie Gonzales, D-Denver. At the time, Gonzales said she and other senators wanted the bill to include a “lookback window” – a period of time in which people whose statute of limitations had expired could file lawsuits for past abuse.

“I want to fight for as broad a policy as possible,” she said. Gonzales did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Wednesday.

At the time, the bill’s other sponsors opted to omit a lookback window due to concerns of legality under the Colorado constitution. States including Arizona, California and New York have already opened their own lookback windows.

This year, the House sponsors, Rep. Dafna Michaelson Jenet, D-Commerce City, and Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta, have brought forth a separate bill to lay the legal grounds for retrospective claims specifically for child victims. Under Senate Bill 88, survivors can bring claims against individuals as well as organizations that operate youth programs, including public entities. They may do so if the organization knew or should have known about a risk of abuse to minors and did not address the risk or warn participants.

Michaelson Jenet told Colorado Politics that between the 2020 session and the current one, the sponsors and other advocates worked toward an option they believed was constitutional.

“I had a call with the Boy Scouts. They had some concerns, but nobody has said at this point, to me, that they’re going to come out and oppose it,” she said.

Raana Simmons, the public policy director for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and one of the people who helped craft the current bills, said SB88 would open the door to retrospective abuse claims through a method that no other state legislature has considered.

“This is a new vehicle to advance the policy goals of addressing institutional coverup and harm,” she said. Senators have told her that it is an “interesting” or “unique” solution, and “there has been a curiosity for the idea,” Simmons added.

Sen. Jessie Danielson, D-Wheat Ridge, is the Senate sponsor of both bills. Sen. Don Coram, R-Montrose, has signed onto the proposal eliminating the statute of limitations for future misconduct, but is not a sponsor of the retrospective bill.

Committee chair Sen. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, acknowledged many of those who testified on SB73 were survivors who had appeared before the legislature repeatedly over the years to advocate for the rights of other victims to access the justice system.

“We should always look for opportunities to modify and adjust all kinds of laws when we see they don’t work anymore,” she said.

Last year marked the first time since 2006 that a serious attempt to extend or eliminate the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse occurred. In 2006, revelations of abuse in Colorado from Catholic priests prompted multiple pieces of legislation, which in turn generated a massive lobbying effort in opposition by the church. The General Assembly did, however, manage to eliminate the criminal statute of limitations for child sex abuse.

Committee vice chair Sen. Joann Ginal, D-Fort Collins, thanked one commenter for referring to SB73 as a health bill. “Every time I hear about this, I’m hearing about PTSD, I’m hearing about complications health-wise,” she observed.

According to ChildUSA, Colorado is one of 13 states with the most restrictive civil statute of limitations window, only extending to victims who take action by age 25 and younger. Thirteen other states and territories, by contrast, have no statute of limitations for some or all types of civil claims.

Sen. Jim Smallwood, R-Parker, expressed confusion before the health committee’s vote about the necessity of eliminating the civil timeline for sexual misconduct litigation but not other types of transgressions.

“Why does this one need to be different?” he asked. “I haven’t seen a lot of other bills, certainly I haven’t seen any in the health committee, that say we’re trying to eliminate these statutes of limitations for these other god-awful things.”

Nevertheless, he voted to advance the bill. Also voting in favor was Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, who said she had asked the sheriff and district attorney in Weld County for advice. They both were in favor, she reported, even though the bill was civil, rather than criminal, in nature.

SB73 now heads to the Senate floor for consideration.