Maryland lawmakers are considering a proposal that could significantly reduce the amount of damages the state might have to pay in lawsuits brought by victims of childhood sexual abuse. The proposal, part of an ongoing legal and political debate, comes after the state lifted the statute of limitations on such claims in 2023, opening the door for thousands of survivors to file lawsuits. Now, with the potential for billions in payouts, the state legislature is looking for ways to limit financial liability.
House Bill 1378, introduced during the current legislative session, seeks to cap the amount of damages that government entities would have to pay in lawsuits filed by survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Supporters argue that without such limits, taxpayers could bear an overwhelming financial burden. However, critics—including survivors and their advocates—argue that capping damages unfairly protects institutions that enabled abuse while denying full justice to survivors.
One of the central figures opposing the proposal is Kristen Gibbons Feden of Anapol Weiss, who has represented sexual abuse victims in high-profile cases, including those against Illinois Youth Centers (IYCs) and the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC). Learn more: Breaking the Silence: 800 Survivors Reveal Decades of Abuse In Illinois Juvenile Detention Centers
In response to the state’s proposed changes, Feden said they “don’t strike a balance at all. They tip the scales really entirely in the state’s favor.” She emphasized that many survivors have waited decades for justice and imposing financial limits “forces survivors into a system that would limit their rights, that would restrict their access to justice and really would protect the institutions that fail them in the first place.”
The issue stems from the Child Victims Act of 2023, which removed the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits in Maryland. Before the law was passed, many survivors had been unable to file claims because the legal window for doing so had long since closed. Once the law changed, survivors were given the opportunity to pursue civil lawsuits against both individual abusers and the institutions that protected them.
In response, state officials and local governments expressed concerns about the financial consequences of the new law, especially for public institutions that could face a flood of lawsuits. The new proposal seeks to place monetary caps on damages from $890,000 to $400,000 per occurrence, potentially limiting compensation for victims in cases where government entities are found liable.
Supporters of the proposal argue that without damage caps, the costs of settlements and judgments could bankrupt government agencies and take money away from essential services. Some lawmakers have framed the proposal as a pragmatic necessity, rather than an attempt to diminish survivors' rights. However, legal advocates, including Feden, dispute this claim, arguing that institutions should be held fully accountable for past failures to protect children: "Damages in civil cases are not simply financial awards…they’re a legal recognition of harm, accountability and deterrence.”
While the legislature continues to debate the proposal, survivors and advocacy groups are mobilizing to oppose any measure that would limit payouts. Some lawmakers have expressed hesitation about passing a law that could be perceived as undermining the intent of the Child Victims Act, which was designed to give survivors a long-overdue path to justice.
Despite pushback, proponents of HB1378 remain firm in their argument that financial responsibility must be taken into account. Some officials have warned that without limits, the state and local governments may be unable to fund essential services, and they argue that a structured compensation system—even if it limits payouts—might be preferable to costly litigation.
For now, the outcome remains uncertain. Survivors and their attorneys continue to push against the proposal, while state officials try to balance financial realities with the moral and legal responsibility to address past abuses. Feden and co-counsel are “negotiating in good faith.”
“If this gets caught up in the courts, what’s going to happen?” said Feden. “It’s going to deny these survivors justice even longer. What the AG’s office is doing here is trying to stall, stall, stall. We are attorneys. That’s what we do all day. We fight, fight, fight.”
