California shouldn’t water down justice for these child sexual abuse survivors

LA County last year agreed to pay a record $4 billion to settle thousands of claimsof sexual abuse in county-run juvenile facilities and foster homes. There are many perspectives on the controversy. This is from a child advocate. Another perspective from unions representing the affected workers is here.

The recent revelation from 95-year-old Dolores Huerta that César Chávez sexually abused her decades ago is a stark reminder of what research has long shown: the ramifications of sexual abuse are profound and lifelong, and it often takes survivors decades to speak out about what they experienced when they were young.

But even as California legislators pledge support for Huerta and other survivors, they are preparing to introduce legislation that would block an entire class of sexual abuse survivors from ever seeking justice.

Last year, Los Angeles County reached a record $4 billion settlement with survivors of sexual abuse in its foster care and juvenile justice systems. New claims continue to pour in from survivors of abuse inside state systems.  

Now the county is pushing legislation that would create new deadlines, damage limits and immunity provisions, making it nearly impossible for those abused at the hands of the state to seek accountability. 

It’s a stunning betrayal for those who have already endured unimaginable harm.

For much of my own life, I have been connected to the foster care system in one way or another, first as a foster youth, later as a caregiver and now as a professional advocate.

Over the years, I have seen the very best of humanity in this system. I have watched foster parents, social workers, and advocates go the extra mile to comfort and care for children who have experienced unthinkable trauma. 

But I have also witnessed the very worst. I’ve seen children who were removed from their homes in the name of “protection” be abused again by the very systems meant to keep them safe. 

This new legislation would add to that trauma by denying survivors redress for harms that are well-documented and could have been prevented.

For generations, children placed in county-run facilities experienced widespread abuse, neglect, and exploitation. As far back as 1984, staff members at the notorious MacLaren Children’s Center were arrested on charges of child molestation, yet the abuse continued.

When the state takes custody of a child, it assumes one of the most fundamental responsibilities imaginable: keeping that child safe. L.A. County has failed to fulfill that most basic obligation.

Now, instead of confronting that failure honestly and fairly, policymakers want to change the rules by denying a particular subset of survivors the right to seek civil damages for the harm they suffered as children. 

County representatives are framing the proposal as a fiscal necessity in the face of California’s expanded statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse, which brought a wave of claims against everyone, from the county to the Boy Scouts, to the Catholic Church. 

But the proposed law wouldn’t limit the rights of scouts or altar boys to seek damages for abuse they suffered as children. Instead, it singles out the disproportionately Black and brown youth who grew up in the custody of the county — a blatant attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the very children the government failed to protect.

The notion that young people who grow up in the care of public systems should have fewer rights than other survivors is outrageous. If anything, they should have more rights. No fiscal pressure justifies telling these young people that their suffering matters less or their rights are less valid than everyone else’s.

The forces that kept Huerta silent for decades can be overwhelming for youth in the foster care and juvenile justice systems who often lack stable adults, resources, or legal support. California recognized this reality when it expanded the statute of limitations. 

This new law would do just the opposite. It tells the public that when government institutions fail children, the solution is not reform, but immunity.

Worst of all, it tells survivors their trauma is less important than a balance sheet.