Legislation Opposed by the FMSF

Child Abuse Accountability Act

The Child Abuse Accountability Act allows those who “successfully sue for damages as a result of childhood sexual abuse to garnish the federal pensions of their abusers.” The act was introduced because of the Simone case. It involves two sisters who successfully sued their father for sexual abuse, but were unable to be financially compensated for the damages because his federal pension was his only asset. This act allows future victims to receive compensation for proven childhood abuse.

Proponents of False Memory Syndrome lobbied to stop the passage of the bill through the Senate. This was despite the fact that the Child Abuse Accountability Act has nothing to do with the reliability of memory – including the original Simone case, many cases of childhood abuse proven in court involve continuous memories of abuse. These actions attempted to block victims of childhood abuse from receiving compensation. However, their lobbying efforts were unsuccessful, and they were unable to garner even a single opposing vote.

This case, the legislation, and the resulting lobbying efforts by the FMSF are covered by Sherry Quirk and Anne DePrince in their article entitled “Backlash Legislation Targeting Psychotherapists.” [6] 

Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

The Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act was the first federal legislation responding to child abuse. It was signed into law in 1974 by President Richard Nixon – although critics often refer to the law as the Mondale Act, named after the liberal Minnesota Democrat who introduced the legislation. The Act authorized demonstration grants and provided funding for child protective service systems and foster care. States were required to establish child-abuse reporting systems in order to be eligible for funding. 

CAPTA quickly became the scapegoat for those claiming to have been wronged by accusations of child abuse in family court or in criminal court. “Father’s rights” groups joined the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and others in railing against CAPTA for fueling the “child abuse industry.” The false premise of that claim was that CAPTA created an incentive to “find” abuse. In fact, CAPTA money was distributed by a formula based entirely on the number of children under 18 residing in the state. [8]

In 1994, there was a joint effort between Ohme, Richard Gardner, and Carol Hopkins to “change the CAPTA laws,” which they viewed as “the root cause of the child sex abuse hysteria and false accusations.” Using his influence with the “[Republican] party in control,” – specifically with Senator Dan Coats – Ohme reports that “Our team was successful in correcting some of the worst features of the old CAPTA law but were blocked from deleting the "mandatory reporting" feature.” [2]

CAPTA was amended in 1996. Conservative Republicans sponsored a bill, supported by the FMSF and others, that would have eliminated child abuse reporting requirements. That provision did not pass, but the law was amended to include new provisions to distinguish false claims from those labeled unsubstantiated. As it turns out, that change has helped document the low incidence of false allegations of child sexual abuse.

Statute of Limitations

When the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from victims of sexual abuse in 1994, Pamela Freyd was the only person who testified in opposition of raising the statue of limitations for cases of sexual abuse. The statute of limitations is the fixed period of time in which legal charges can be brought after an incident has occurred. Raising the statute of limitations would allow survivors – with continuous or recovered memories –  to pursue justice for abuse that occurred years before, after realizing they were abused.

Pamela Freyd expressed the concern that extending the statute of limitations “may create more tarnished reputations,” urging the committee to amend the bill to “encourage and emphasize alternative means of resolving these matters other than courts.” [9]