Maryland Child Victims Act: The Statute, the Ruling, and the Claims

Maryland removed the civil time limits on child sexual abuse claims in 2023. Under the Child Victims Act of 2023 (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), an action for damages arising out of sexual abuse of a minor may be filed at any time. The Supreme Court of Maryland held 4 to 3 on February 3, 2025 that eliminating a 2017 time restriction retroactively did not abrogate a vested right. The legislature cut the damages caps in 2025, and more than 900 claims against the Archdiocese of Baltimore sit in a chapter 11 case where no plan has been approved.

What the Child Victims Act changed

Maryland adopted § 5-117 in 2003 with a seven-year limitations period that applied only prospectively, according to the Supreme Court’s opinion. A 2017 law (2017 Md. Laws, chs. 12 and 656) extended the period to the later of 20 years after the victim reached the age of majority or three years after a defendant’s conviction for certain related crimes, and provided that an action against a non-perpetrator could in no event be filed more than 20 years after the victim reached the age of majority. An uncodified section called that provision a statute of repose, and the Act took effect on October 1, 2017.

The Child Victims Act of 2023 (Senate Bill 686, Chapter 5, with an identical companion in House Bill 1, Chapter 6) was approved by Governor Wes Moore on April 11, 2023 and took effect on October 1, 2023. It repealed the time limits, broadened the definition of “sexual abuse,” and applies retroactively to revive claims barred before October 1, 2023, except that no such action may be brought if the alleged victim is deceased when it commences.

Damages caps and the 2025 reduction

For revived claims, noneconomic damages against a private party were capped at $1,500,000 per claimant against a single defendant, and the State’s liability was capped at $890,000. Chapter 104 of the 2025 Laws of Maryland (House Bill 1378) lowered those figures to $700,000 and $400,000 for actions filed on or after June 1, 2025, kept the higher caps for earlier filings, and made one cap apply per claimant rather than per incident. Attorney General Anthony G. Brown’s office advised that the changes were not clearly unconstitutional.

The constitutional challenge and the ruling

Three cases were consolidated for one opinion and argued on September 10, 2024: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. John Doe (No. 9), Board of Education of Harford County v. Doe (No. 10), and The Key School, Inc. v. Valerie Bunker (Misc. No. 2). Each asked whether the Act abrogated a vested right under the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution.

The court answered no on February 3, 2025. Chief Justice Matthew Fader, joined by Justices Watts, Booth and Killough, wrote that the 2017 provision was an ordinary statute of limitations, that its expiration did not create a vested right to be free of liability, and that the General Assembly could retroactively abrogate it. Justices Biran, Eaves and McDonald dissented.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established: the text and dates of the 2003, 2017, 2023 and 2025 enactments; the 4 to 3 ruling of February 3, 2025; that the attorney general’s report is an interim, redacted document stating on its cover page that the accusations described do not constitute findings of guilt; that the archdiocese filed for chapter 11 on September 29, 2023 as case number 23-16969, with May 31, 2024 as the deadline for proofs of claim; and that a 2026 legislative fiscal note states more than 900 claimants filed. The report’s List of Abusers names individuals, among them Father Maurice Blackwell, and the report records the archbishops who led the archdiocese over the period it covers, most recently William E. Lori, in office since 2012.

Alleged, and not decided: the abuse allegations themselves; assertions that church leadership concealed abuse; and what any claimant should receive.

Where the claims stand procedurally

The constitutional question was resolved in February 2025, and cases against schools, boards of education and other institutions continue in the circuit courts, subject to the Act’s provision allowing interlocutory appeals of constitutional rulings. These claims are not consolidated before one federal judge, unlike the matters in the mass tort overview.

The largest concentration of claims sits in the chapter 11 case of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, which does business as the Archdiocese of Baltimore (No. 23-16969-MMH, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland). The court’s notice states that anyone with a sexual abuse claim had to file a proof of claim by May 31, 2024 to preserve it, including people who had already sued.

On May 15, 2026 the archdiocese filed a proposed plan that contemplates an independent survivor compensation trust funded by the archdiocese, its insurers and participating parishes and schools; its statement says no final agreement had been reached. In early August 2026 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michelle M. Harner denied approval of the disclosure statements for that plan and for a competing plan from the official committee of unsecured creditors, and a confirmation hearing set for September 14, 2026 did not proceed. That ruling is recorded in the case docket (No. 23-16969, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland); the order itself is not linked here because no copy was retrievable from the court’s public pages at the time of writing, and legal press reporting describes proposals that differ widely in what they would pay.

Key dates

• April 11, 2023: Governor Wes Moore approves Senate Bill 686 as Chapter 5.
• October 1, 2023: The Child Victims Act takes effect.
• February 3, 2025: The court rules 4 to 3 that the Act is constitutional as applied.
• August 2026: The judge denies approval of the disclosure statements for both plans.

What this does not establish

No court has found any defendant liable for the abuse described in the attorney general’s report or in any pending claim, and the constitutional ruling decided a question of law rather than any factual allegation. No plan has been confirmed, and no settlement amount has been fixed for any claimant. The caps are limits rather than entitlements.

Frequently asked questions

Does Maryland still have a deadline for child sexual abuse civil claims?

No, for claims covered by the Child Victims Act: § 5-117(b) provides that such an action may be filed at any time, notwithstanding any time limitation. The exception is that a claim which would have been time-barred before October 1, 2023 cannot be brought if the alleged victim is deceased when it commences.

How much can a claimant recover against an institution?

For claims that would have been time-barred before October 1, 2023, noneconomic damages against a private defendant are capped at $700,000 and against the State or a local government at $400,000 for actions filed on or after June 1, 2025, with higher caps for earlier filings. The cap applies once per claimant.

What happens to a claim against the Archdiocese of Baltimore?

Once the archdiocese filed, litigation was stayed and claimants had to file a proof of claim by May 31, 2024 to preserve their rights, even if they had already sued. Claims against parishes are handled separately, because reporting describes the judge ruling that parishes are legally distinct from the archdiocese. The Boy Scouts abuse settlement shows how a confirmed plan and trust channels claims against related entities, and this background on Catholic Church abuse claims covers related questions.

How people are named here. Court records in this proceeding identify complainants by pseudonym or initials, and this article follows the court's own designations rather than attempting to identify anyone. People accused of wrongdoing are named where an indictment, court filing, regulator's report or an institution's published disclosure list names them. The rule is set out in full in our editorial policy.

Sources

1. Maryland General Assembly: “Senate Bill 686, 2023 Regular Session: Civil Actions, Child Sexual Abuse (The Child Victims Act of 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
2. Maryland General Assembly: “Chapter 5, Senate Bill 686, 2023 Laws of Maryland” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
3. Maryland General Assembly: “Statutes Text: Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Section 5-117” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
4. Maryland General Assembly: “Statutes Text: State Government, Section 12-104” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
5. Maryland General Assembly: “Chapter 104, House Bill 1378, 2025 Laws of Maryland” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
6. Office of the Attorney General of Maryland: “Attorney General review letter on House Bill 1378, April 21, 2025” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
7. Supreme Court of Maryland: “Opinion, Nos. 9 and 10 and Misc. No. 2, September Term 2024, filed February 3, 2025” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
8. Office of the Attorney General of Maryland: “Attorney General’s Report on Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
9. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland: “In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, Chapter 11 Case 23-16969” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
10. Archdiocese of Baltimore: “Notice of the deadline for timely filing proofs of claim relating to, or arising from, sexual abuse” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
11. Archdiocese of Baltimore: “Statement on filing a proposed plan of Chapter 11 reorganization, May 15, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
12. Maryland Department of Legislative Services: “Fiscal and policy note, House Bill 722, 2026 Regular Session” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.