In Massachusetts, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse generally has until their 53rd birthday to sue. After that, the courthouse door closes, no matter what the evidence shows. A poll released Thursday found 84 percent of Massachusetts voters support eliminating that deadline, GBH News reported, and a proposal to do it is sitting in a closed-door House and Senate negotiation that has until January 5, 2027 to finish.
The push comes about a week after Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s report on clergy abuse in the Fall River, Springfield and Worcester dioceses, which found that no one could be prosecuted. Here is what the law says now, what the proposal would change, whether reviving old claims is constitutional, and who opposes it.
The poll
- MassINC Polling Group surveyed more than 800 registered voters in mid-September. 84 percent supported changing state law to eliminate the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse cases, GBH News reported.
- More than nine in 10 agreed that people abused as children “may need many years to come forward.”
- The poll was commissioned by the law firm Herman Law on behalf of survivors and advocates, including the Boston group Enough Abuse, GBH reported. Polls sponsored by advocates should be read with that in mind.
The law now: 35 years, starting at 18
Massachusetts has two separate deadlines, one for suing the abuser and one for suing an institution.
- Against the abuser, G.L. c. 260, § 4C. A lawsuit “alleging the defendant sexually abused a minor” must be filed “within 35 years of the acts alleged to have caused an injury or condition or within 7 years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that an emotional or psychological injury or condition was caused by said act, whichever period expires later.” The clock is tolled until the child turns 18.
- Against an institution, G.L. c. 260, § 4C½. The same 35-year and 7-year periods apply to a suit “alleging that the defendant negligently supervised a person who sexually abused a minor or that the defendant’s conduct caused or contributed to the sexual abuse of a minor by another person.” That is the section that covers churches, schools, camps and youth programs.
Thirty-five years from age 18 is the 53rd birthday. The 7-year discovery rule can extend that for someone who did not connect their injury to the abuse until later. These deadlines were last changed in 2014; before that, the limit was when victims turned 21, WBUR reported.
The $20,000 cap
Even a survivor who sues in time may hit a second limit. Under G.L. c. 231, § 85K, when a charity commits a tort “in the course of any activity carried on to accomplish directly the charitable purposes” of the organization, its liability “shall not exceed the sum of twenty thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs.” The cap does not apply to activities “primarily commercial in character.” Many churches, schools and youth organizations are charities.
What the proposal would change
According to GBH, WBUR and the State House News Service:
- No deadline. Eliminate the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse claims, against both abusers and institutions.
- A lookback window. Let survivors whose claims already expired file anyway. The House version would open a two-year window to file previously barred claims, WBUR reported; Campbell’s recommendation did not set a time limit.
- Lift the cap. Remove the $20,000 charitable cap for these cases.
The House attached the provisions to its primary care bill earlier this year, and they are now part of the conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate, WBUR reported. A separate standalone bill, H 4539, had been pending in House Ways and Means, according to an earlier State House News Service report published by WWLP. Similar legislation cleared the Senate last session and died in the House.
The change would apply only to civil lawsuits for money damages. It would not reopen criminal cases. As Campbell put it, “When a statute of limitations has expired, a later change in the law does not allow prosecutors to go back and reopen those cases,” GBH reported.
Can Massachusetts revive expired claims?
The Supreme Judicial Court has already answered part of that question. In Sliney v. Previte, 473 Mass. 283 (2015), a woman sued a man she said had abused her as a child. Her case had been dismissed in 2012 as too late. The Legislature then extended the deadline in 2014 and made it retroactive. The SJC held the new deadline applied to her case and that applying it retroactively was constitutional, and it reinstated her lawsuit.
The court used a three-part test for whether applying a statute retroactively is reasonable: “the public interest that motivated the Legislature to enact the statute, the nature of the rights affected by the retroactivity, and the scope of the impact of the statute on those rights.” It acknowledged that a defendant “has a legitimate interest in protecting against having to” defend stale claims, but weighed that against the public interest the law was meant to protect.
Sliney decided the question for the claim and defendant before it. A new law reviving claims, especially against institutions, would likely face its own challenges under the same test. Laws changing these deadlines have drawn constitutional challenges in several other states, the State House News Service reported.
Who opposes it
- Insurers. The Massachusetts Insurance Federation opposes eliminating the deadline. Its executive director, Christopher Stark, told WBUR that retroactively lifting it is “unworkable” because defendants and their insurers may no longer have the records needed to mount a defense.
- The Catholic Church. Lobbyists for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference have sought to block similar proposals in past sessions, according to public filings cited by WBUR. The organization did not respond to WBUR’s request for comment.
- Advocates’ reply. “Plaintiffs have to prove their case,” Kathryn Robb of Enough Abuse told WBUR.
Frequently asked questions
What is the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse in Massachusetts?
For civil lawsuits, 35 years from the abuse, with the clock paused until the survivor turns 18, or 7 years from when the survivor discovered or reasonably should have discovered the injury was caused by the abuse, whichever is later. G.L. c. 260, sections 4C and 4C1/2. In practice, that is generally the survivor’s 53rd birthday.
Can you sue a church or school for abuse in Massachusetts?
Yes, for negligent supervision or conduct that caused or contributed to the abuse, under G.L. c. 260, section 4C1/2, within the same deadlines. Damages against a charity may be capped at $20,000 under G.L. c. 231, section 85K.
Is Massachusetts eliminating the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse?
Not yet. The proposal is part of a House and Senate conference committee negotiation on a health care bill. The Legislature has until January 5, 2027 to finish its work.
Would the change allow criminal charges in old cases?
No. The proposal concerns civil lawsuits. Expired criminal cases cannot be reopened by a later change in the law, the attorney general has said.
Has the SJC upheld reviving expired abuse claims?
In Sliney v. Previte (2015), the SJC upheld the retroactive application of the 2014 deadline extension to a claim against an alleged abuser that had already been dismissed as untimely.
Sources: GBH News (Hannah Reale), October 8, 2026; WBUR, October 5, 2026; State House News Service via WWLP. G.L. c. 260, sections 4C and 4C1/2, and G.L. c. 231, section 85K, read at malegislature.gov. Sliney v. Previte, 473 Mass. 283 (2015), read on CourtListener. We did not read the poll or the pending amendment text. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice. If you are a survivor, a local rape crisis center can help.