School districts are circumventing sexual abuse claims via gifts of public funds clause

For three decades, our jurisprudence has recognized the duty of a school district to protect its students from molestation by its teachers. (Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1854.)

For two decades, the Legislature has enacted laws to afford access to justice for victims who were sexually abused as minors. Yet at each turn, school districts have found loopholes, endorsed by fatal court opinions, depriving these victims of that access. Worse, the delay tactics in demurrers and appeals serve to denigrate victims in the validity of their claims. Those victims came forward believing that a change in the laws would afford them vindication while effectuating change to protect other vulnerable children. To what end?

In 2002, the Legislature expanded the statute of limitations for victims of childhood sexual abuse. School districts successfully evaded responsibility for breach of the duty to supervise by invoking the lack of a timely claim under Government Code §910.

The Legislature then declared that abuse occurring after Jan. 1, 2009 would not be subject to the claim presentation requirement. [Government Code §905(m).] School districts then raised a loophole under Government Code §935 by which a local agency may impose its own claim presentation requirements. [Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School Dist. V. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 403.] Compounded with the Supreme Court decision in Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903, 910, holding that the claim accrues at the time of the molestation, minors were completely divested of any access to justice. That decision held that a sexually abused child must present a claim (via guardian) within six months of the abuse. An abused child does not understand what occurred and is frequently threatened by the abuser not to tell anyone. Since the effects of child abuse rarely manifest to parents within a mere 6 months, this served to eliminate all actions against the school districts simply because a form had not been presented to the offending entity within six months.

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, the addition of subsection (f) to Government Code §935 eliminated that blockage. Actions for childhood sexual abuse against local entities could no longer be conveniently eviscerated by the Government Claim Act.

Then Government Code §905(p) (effective Jan. 1, 2020) expressly provided for retroactivity of all actions otherwise barred by the Government Claim requirement. This statute was part of AB 218.

School districts then contested the constitutionality of the Legislature's edict, asserting that it violated the prohibition against gifts of public funds under Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Virtually every action filed since AB 218's effective date has been met with demurrers and motions for judgment on the pleadings on that ground, protracting the victims' vindication and validation necessary to proceed toward healing.

But, the simple fact remains that, under the law, a statute promoting a public interest cannot violate the Gift Clause. (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630, 637.) The stated purpose of AB 218 was to allow compensation to victims of childhood sexual abuse, to "help prevent future assaults," and to serve "as an effective deterrent against individuals and entities who have chosen to protect perpetrators of sexual assault over victims." (See X.M. v. Superior Court (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1027, quoting Off. Of Assem. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 218 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), as amended Aug. 30, 2019, p. 2.) The prevention of future assaults on students in public schools by school employees is a benefit to the public, since there are nearly six million minor students in California public schools. [https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp.] Also, there is no "appropriation" of public funds until after a plaintiff proves his/her case. As such, the "Gift Clause" challenge is a despicable attempt to protract the angst and anxiety of the victims the districts were charged to protect.