Key Takeaways
- Massachusetts voters broadly support eliminating civil deadlines for childhood sexual abuse claims.
- The proposed reforms remain pending.
- A revival window is crucial for survivors whose claims have already expired.
- Survivors should seek an individual assessment rather than assume their age prevents a lawsuit.
The harm of child sexual abuse does not expire. A survivor’s opportunity to seek accountability should not depend on an arbitrary deadline.
A new Massachusetts poll shows broad support for removing those deadlines. As Boston 25 News reported on October 8, 84% of respondents support eliminating the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits.
Now lawmakers have an opportunity to act. Survivors and advocates are urging them to preserve reforms known as Amendment 110 in the final version of a major health care bill.
These changes are still pending. Massachusetts has not yet enacted the reforms discussed here.
What the Massachusetts poll found
The MassINC Polling Group surveyed 802 registered Massachusetts voters online from September 14 through September 19, 2026. Herman Law commissioned the survey, and Enough Abuse released the results.
Among the findings reported by Boston 25:
- 84% support eliminating civil filing deadlines for child sexual abuse lawsuits.
- 91% strongly or somewhat agree that people who experienced sexual abuse may need many years to come forward.
- 93% agree that institutions, including schools and religious organizations, should be accountable when they fail to protect children from abuse.
These findings matter because they show public support for giving survivors a meaningful opportunity to pursue accountability. Lawmakers should listen.
What is the current Massachusetts statute of limitations?
Massachusetts law generally allows covered civil claims within the later of:
- 35 years after the alleged abuse, with the limitations period tolled until the survivor turns 18; or
- Seven years after the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that the abuse caused an emotional or psychological injury or condition.
A related statute addresses negligent supervision and conduct that caused or contributed to abuse by another person.
The first calculation is commonly described as allowing claims until age 53. But age 53 is not an absolute cutoff for every survivor. The discovery rule and the application of earlier legal changes can affect the analysis.
If you experienced abuse years ago, do not assume your claim is barred based only on your age. An attorney needs to examine the facts, dates, defendants, and applicable law.
What would the proposed reforms change?
The House version of the primary care and health care affordability legislation, H.5630, includes three major civil reforms:
- Eliminate filing deadlines for covered childhood sexual abuse claims, including specified claims involving negligent supervision or conduct contributing to abuse.
- Open a two-year revival window for qualifying claims already barred by expired deadlines or certain notice requirements.
- Remove the charitable damages cap for covered child sexual abuse and negligent supervision claims.
The revival window is essential. Removing deadlines alone does not necessarily restore claims that have already expired.
These provisions would expand access to court. Survivors would still need to establish their claims; passage would not automatically establish liability or guarantee compensation.
Why the $20,000 charitable cap matters
Under current Massachusetts law, damages against qualifying charitable organizations can be limited to $20,000 when a tort occurs in activities directly carrying out the organization’s charitable purposes. The law contains exceptions, so the cap does not apply to every nonprofit or every claim.
Even so, a cap that applies regardless of the full harm can sharply restrict a survivor’s recovery.
Charitable status should carry a responsibility to protect children. It should not shield an institution from meaningful financial accountability when its own conduct contributed to abuse.
Why lawmakers must preserve these protections
Boston 25 reported that survivors, advocates, and lawmakers gathered at the State House on October 8 to urge the conference committee to retain Amendment 110 in the final health care legislation.
A conference committee reconciles differences between House and Senate versions. House passage is an important step, but it is not enactment.
The reform effort also follows the Massachusetts attorney general’s investigation of the Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester Catholic dioceses. The office reports evidence that more than 270 clerics sexually abused nearly 1,000 children.
Those findings underscore the stakes of institutional accountability. Courts need the opportunity to examine evidence of abuse and the failures that allowed it.
Lawmakers should preserve the deadline reforms, the revival window, and the removal of the charitable cap. Each addresses a different barrier. Survivors need all three.
What survivors can do now
You do not have to wait for legislation to ask about your rights. A claim may already be available under current law.
If you are considering legal action, preserve any records you already have, including messages, letters, photographs, or documents identifying the person or institution involved. You do not need to investigate the case yourself before speaking with an attorney.
At Andreozzi + Foote, we advocate for survivors and meaningful institutional accountability. Contact our team to discuss potential civil options, including the jurisdiction and deadlines that may apply to your circumstances.
Frequently asked questions
Has Massachusetts eliminated civil deadlines for childhood sexual abuse lawsuits?
No. As of October 10, 2026, the reforms discussed above remain pending. The existing statutes still govern.
Can a survivor older than 53 still have a claim?
Possibly. Age alone does not resolve the question. The discovery rule, the history of the claim, and other legal issues require individual review.
Would the proposal reopen older cases?
The House text includes a two-year window for qualifying expired claims. That window has not opened, and the final enacted language would control eligibility.
Could a lawsuit involve a school, church, or other organization?
Potentially, when there is a legal basis to hold the organization responsible. Institutional liability depends on the evidence and applicable law.
Speak to a Sexual Assault Attorney Today
If the Cornell case has taught us anything, it is that civil justice leads to change. Our trauma informed sexual assault attorneys are ready to meet with you and discuss your options.
Andreozzi + Foote represents survivors of childhood sexual abuse and institutional abuse nationwide.
We offer free, confidential consultations to help survivors understand their rights and evaluate potential legal options.
You deserve answers. And you deserve to know whether the law may now provide a path forward.
Contact us today.
(866) 858-3790