Victim advocate seeks statute of limitation input from abuse survivors |

Victim advocate seeks statute of limitation input from abuse survivors

Deb Erdley
The Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro ignited a firestorm last year when he released his grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse and now lawmakers are learning just how hard it is to clear the smoke with regard to survivors.

Pennsylvania Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm announced Wednesday she is seeking testimony from any adult survivors of child sexual abuse regarding the numerous statute of limitation reform bills awaiting a vote.

The current statue allows survivors to file suit against their abusers until age 20. Various proposed bills would extend that to allow survivors access to civil courts for decades in the future.

A bill to open a two-year window in the statute of limitations to allow adult survivors timed out of court to file suit ran up against a road block in the state Senate last year.

Storm said she will take statements through Sept. 20 and use those narratives to shape her testimony for an Oct. 2 hearing before the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. Survivors may provide statements about their experience and their perspectives on statute of limitations reform either anonymously or with contact information.

“It is important to note that the testimony provided is considered public record and may be used by the Victim Advocate or reviewed by members of the Senate,” Storm said.

She said victim assistance coordinators with her staff are available to assist victims/survivors who wish to provide their statement by phone Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. at 800-563-6399.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.