Sen. Frank Blas Jr., R-Barrigada, introduced Bill 326-33 a few months ago, following several public accusations by former altar boys who allege that Archbishop Anthony Apuron sexually abused them while he was parish priest in Agat, Guam, during the 1970s.

Pending the governor's signature, Blas' bill would give any victim the opportunity to file civil action and seek monetary restitution from the person who allegedly sexually abused them, as well as the institution or entity that was "acting in concert" with the perpetrator.

If the bill becomes law, it could allow the alleged victims to sue Apuron.

Last week, Joseph "Joe" Santos, the founder of a local grassroots group advocating to help victims of child sexual abuse, presented Blas with a petition that contained signatures from more than 3,000 people who support the bill.

"In light of growing awareness of child sexual abuse, many states have begun to reform criminal statutes. We are hoping to the do same here on Guam," Blas told his fellow lawmakers during session Monday morning.

In 2011 the legislature passed a similar measure, opening a two-year window for any victim of childhood sexual abuse to file a civil case.

At the time, the local Catholic church advocated against it.

Source

• usatoday.com
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: guampdn.com

The opportunity to bring the claims was given during in 2003 when a one-year window for old complaints against priests was granted by the state.

The court ruled 5-2 that the brothers had waited too long.

"Although we are unreservedly sympathetic to the plight of persons who were subjected to childhood sexual abuse, we note that the preexisting limitations period, along with the one-year revival period ... afforded victims a very considerable time following the abuse in which to come to maturity, or even middle age, and discover the claim," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the majority.

The brothers' lawyers maintain the time limit did not apply to the men because they did not make the link between their psychological problems as adults and what happened to them as children until after the filing window closed.

The justices, however, said the brothers were not eligible to employ the "delayed discovery" provision because the statute of limitations for them to sue the priest's employer already had lapsed under an earlier law that permitted victims to sue third parties only if they were under the age of 26.

The ruling could doom at least eight other pending cases involving decades-old clergy abuse claims.

Sources

• Associated Press
• Image: Law offices of David E Coombs