Retroactive provision of child abuse bill debate |

Retroactive provision of child abuse bill debate

HARRISBURG — Advocates and opponents of legislation expanding the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse debated the issue Monday at a Senate hearing, but those favoring the changes claim the witness list was stacked and the chairman has a conflict of interest.

The bill would extend the age for people filing civil suits for sexual abuse from 30 to 50. The bill prevents organizations from claiming immunity if they act with gross negligence.

But the key provision under debate is allowing retroactive lawsuits until a person turns 50 years old.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County, denied a conflict because of his law firm’s representation of a monastic order in a civil suit alleging abuse, saying he was not personally involved. A senior partner in Elliott Greenleaf, a suburban Philadelphia law firm, Greenleaf said he anticipated a question might arise and he checked with the Senate parliamentarian last week, who told him he would “have to vote on it as chairman, if it came up.” There was no vote.

“It wasn’t a conflict,” Greenleaf said.

“The whole hearing reeked of being a set up,” Rep. Mark Rozzi, D-Reading, an abuse victim and leading advocate of expanding the time for filing civil suits. “I’m embarrassed today to call myself a representative for the commonwealth.”

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference and some businesses groups oppose the bill.

A grand jury report in March alleging abuse by Roman Catholic priests triggered the bill’s passage in the House. Greenleaf said the Senate will “take ample time” to review the testimony; no vote is scheduled.

“This is an outrage,” said Marci Hamilton, a lawyer who has represented victims in lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church. “In the end, it’s just some powerful men standing between (victims) and justice.”

Testimony before the committee was weighted heavily with witnesses saying the retroactive provision was unconstitutional, advocates claimed. Greenleaf said advocates were told they could bring other witnesses.

Hamilton, a witness and a senior fellow in religion in the University of Pennsylvania’s Fox Leadership Program, testified that the retroactive provision is constitutional.

“Rep. Rozzi is claiming that we stacked the deck against him, but that’s not true,” said Greenleaf’s aide Patrick Cawley. “He (Rozzi) refused to accept the scope of the hearing, which was the Pennsylvania Constitution and Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases.”

The provision allowing retroactive lawsuits is unconstitutional, Solicitor General Bruce Castor, top aide to Attorney General Kathleen Kane, told the panel.

“The General Assembly in its zeal cannot overrule a constitutional right,” Castor testified.

“Apart from that provision, our office wholeheartedly supports the legislation,” he testified.

Stephen Neuberger, a Delaware attorney who represents victims and whose firm opposed Greenleaf’s in 2008, said at a rally after the hearing that Castor also had a conflict he failed to disclose. Castor, when asked Monday, said he was “a partner of Senator Greenleaf’s from 2008 to 2013.

“And so what? I was a shareholder and director of the firm, and as such, Senator Greenleaf and I were colleagues and friends,” Castor said.

Hamilton said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not ruled on retroactivity. She suggested the legislature could pass a law and allow the court to decide.

Hamilton called lifting statutes of limitations “a civil rights movement for children.”

The grand jury report found that hundreds of kids were abused by as many as 50 priests over four decades in the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Diocese. Kane’s office oversaw the grand jury report. There were no state indictments at the time because statute of limitations had expired or some victims were no longer living or willing to testify, officials said.

Two weeks later, Kane’s office charged three former Franciscan Friar leaders with allegedly allowing a known predator friar to abuse scores of children.

The Philadelphia Diocese recently launched a verbal assault on the legislation, with Archbishop Charles Chaput calling the bill “unjust” and deeply “misleading.” He said it doesn’t treat victims equally, making claims retroactive against churches and private institutions but not on public institutions.

Kane, whose law license is suspended because she faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in Montgomery County, said she could not offer an opinion on the bill’s constitutionality and tasked Castor with doing so.

Kane’s trial is scheduled for August.

Brad Bumsted is state Capitol reporter for the Tribune-Review. He can be reached at 717-787-1405 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.