This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Schools and local governments facing crippling damages from lawsuits over child sex abuse would gain some relief under a measure the California Legislature passed Sunday, although not nearly as much as they hoped.
The legislation, Senate Bill 577 by Sen. John Laird, was the product of two years of negotiations and allows many survivors of childhood sexual assault at public institutions to continue to sue the public bodies they say are responsible for their trauma.
Shortly after the Assembly approved the measure 46 to 19, the Senate voted 24 to 10 to send the bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.
The measure did not include any caps on damages, which schools wanted but survivor groups argued were akin to putting a price tag on someone’s assault. Local governments and school districts were adamant that limits, while politically unappealing, were the only solution to substantially improve their financial health.
But in a win for the public entities, the legislation requires older survivors to present stronger, “clear and convincing” evidence of their assaults, and show that the entity had “actual knowledge” of the abuse. The new requirements apply to survivors over age 40 and those with cases prior to 2024 — when lawmakers abolished the statute of limitations for child sex abuse cases — in which records were destroyed.
The bill also lays out a host of preventive measures to curb child sex abuse in public institutions.
Counties, cities and school districts would be required to develop and submit codes of conduct and sexual assault prevention plans to the California attorney general’s office by Jan. 1, 2028 and that office would brief the Legislature on which agencies fail to comply.
There are also provisions to crack down on fraudulent claims. Attorneys who are found to have brought a child sexual abuse claim “in bad faith” would be subject to a $25,000 fine.
Laird before the vote said the bill was a step in the right direction.
“It is an indicator that we have strived to maintain balance,” Laird said in a floor speech.
Chantel Johnson, a spokesperson for the Youth Law Center, which represents survivors, said in a statement that the final legislation was “a hard-won compromise” that balances fiscal concerns and the rights of survivors. It was “not the bill the Youth Law Center would have written,” Johnson said, but they applauded lawmakers for rejecting caps on damages and also for including robust protections and prevention measures.
Opponents of the bill — Republicans and Democrats — raised concerns about the higher evidentiary standard, which will make it much more difficult for survivors over the age of 40 to seek justice. Law enforcement agencies also raised concerns about a section of the bill that changes access to law enforcement’s personnel records.
“It’s a bill that is bad for survivors, plain and simple,” said Caroline Heldman, co-founder of Stand With Survivors. She said the higher threshold for evidence created an “impossible standard” for survivors who, for whatever reason, don’t seek justice until later in life.
‘Hard to believe’: Two Redwood City residents died in Palo Alto motorcycle crashesAugust 28, 2026 5:04 pm
