CONCORD, N.H. – A New Hampshire law intended to help victims of sexual abuse have their day in court isn’t clear as to whom it protects, the state Supreme Court recently wrote in rejecting a lawsuit against the Catholic church.
Though in 2020 legislators voted to remove the statute of limitations for sexual-assault civil cases, they did not specify whether it applied to claims stemming from abuse before the law passed. The court decided Wednesday that it does not.
“We are acutely aware that victims of child sex abuse are some of the most vulnerable victims who deserve all of the protections and remedies available in our judicial system,” Justice Patrick Donovan wrote.
“Further, we recognize that the result here may prevent some victims who have been impacted by sex abuse – during childhood or adulthood – from bringing claims when the statute of limitations has expired before the effective date of RSA 508:4-g.
“Our role, however, in our co-equal tripartite form of government is to interpret the constitution and resolve disputes arising under it.”
The issue arose in Randy Ball’s lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester. He alleged he was sexually abused in the 1970s at Camp Fatima and sued in 2023.
Under old state law, Ball had run out of time to sue when he turned 20. But modifications made by the legislature culminated in the 2020 law that removed the statute of limitations entirely, yet was “silent as to whether it applies prospectively or retrospectively,” Donovan wrote.
This led the church to seek dismissal on the grounds it did not apply to actions that far in the past. A trial court agreed, and Ball’s lawyers appealed.
New Hampshire’s Constitution says “Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offenses.”
The Supreme Court assumed the legislature meant for the sexual-abuse law to apply retroactively but still couldn’t square those intentions with the Constitution.
