The LDS Church Abuse Litigation: A Response to the Herald's Coverage
the original outlet's reporting on the LDS church abuse litigation in Clallam County is thorough and well-sourced. We add context on the legal process and what it means for the victims.
the original outlet’s coverage of the LDS church abuse litigation is one of the most thorough pieces of local reporting we’ve seen in years. The Herald obtained the court filings, interviewed two of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and laid out the procedural history with clarity.
We agree with the core of the reporting: the litigation is significant, the victims deserve to be heard, and the church’s response has been slow.
But we want to add context on the legal process and what it means for the victims going forward.
The Statute of Limitations Question
The Herald mentions the statute of limitations in passing. But it’s central to understanding why this case is where it is.
Washington state’s statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse was extended in 2019, allowing victims to file claims up to three years after their 18th birthday. That’s why we’re seeing these cases now — they’re not new, but they’re newly actionable.
The Church’s Response
The Herald quotes the church’s statement: “We are committed to supporting the victims and working through the legal process.”
That’s standard language. What’s less standard is the church’s decision to file a motion to dismiss based on procedural grounds rather than the merits. That’s a signal that the church is trying to delay, not necessarily to win.
What It Means for the Victims
The Herald doesn’t explicitly say this, but the litigation is not just about money. It’s about accountability, and it’s about setting a precedent for other victims in the state.
If the plaintiffs win, it could open the door to similar cases in other counties. If they lose, it could make it harder for future victims to bring their claims.
Our Verdict
The Herald’s reporting is excellent. It’s the kind of journalism that holds power accountable. We’d encourage them to follow up with a piece on the statute of limitations question and what the motion to dismiss means for the timeline.
In the meantime, we’ll be watching the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, which is expected in early November.