THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 31, 1995 TAG: 9507310027
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: Long : 118 lines
For eight years, Mary suffered silently as her father raped and molested her.
About twice a week, especially on weekends, Mary's dad would fondle her, force her to have sex, and take lewd pictures. She was 4 years old when it began, 12 when it mercifully ended.
That was 20 years ago. Now Mary is 31 and has taken an unprecedented step: She is suing her father for more than $1 million.
The lawsuit, filed this month in Virginia Beach Circuit Court, may be the first under Virginia's new child-molestation law, which took effect July 1. The statute lets adults, in some cases, sue their childhood abusers, even if the crimes happened years or decades earlier.
Mary is a fictitious name - this newspaper does not identify victims of sex crimes without their permission - but her lawsuit is real.
``This is going to open the courthouse door to people who have claims based on childhood abuse, a door that was previously closed to them,'' said state Sen. Joseph V. Gartlan Jr., D-Fairfax, who wrote the new law.
For sex-abuse victims, the ability to sue their tormentors, to publicly disclose what happened years earlier, helps them regain a sense of power, no matter what the outcome, said Sylvia Clute, a Richmond lawyer who represents Mary.
``That can be a major part of the healing process,'' Clute said. Winning money damages is secondary. ``The main purpose,'' she said, ``is therapeutic.''
Experts do not expect many victims to take advantage of the new statute. It is expensive and time-consuming to sue a molester, and the process dredges up horrible memories for victims.
Mary's case in Virginia Beach shows how the new law will work.
The bad things began for Mary in 1967.
Her family was living in Princess Anne Plaza. Her father, an Army man and later a shipyard worker, began fondling Mary's private parts, according to a 21-count criminal indictment, a separate court action from Mary's civil suit.
Over time, the molestation grew worse. By 1970, when Mary was 7, her father was raping Mary, forcing her to have anal and oral sex, taking lewd pictures of her and her girlfriend in exchange for piggyback rides, according to the indictment and Mary's lawsuit.
Mary felt ``trapped, isolated and alone,'' her lawsuit says.
The abuse finally ended in 1975, when Mary was 12.
For many years, Mary carried the burden quietly, sharing it with no one. It caused problems at school, at work, in her marriage. She had nightmares and suffered eating disorders. In her mind, she separated herself from what had been done to her body.
Finally, in 1994, Mary confronted her inner demons through psychiatric therapy. There, according to her lawsuit, Mary made the connection between her sexual abuse and her mental problems.
Soon after, the case shifted to Circuit Court.
Last September, a Virginia Beach grand jury indicted Mary's father on 21 counts of rape, indecent liberties and crimes against nature. Among the evidence is taped conversations between Mary and her father.
A criminal trial is set for Sept. 18, and Mary's father will fight the charges.
In court papers, the father's attorney, Richard G. Brydges, says his client was not home when some of the alleged crimes occurred, and Mary ``is simply using (criminal charges) to perpetuate some vendetta that has occurred to her late in life.''
In an interview, Brydges said the father financially supported Mary through two failed marriages, and she brought the charges and civil suit against him after he cut her off.
``She's not looking for justice,'' Brydges said. ``She's looking for money.''
As in any criminal case, the criminal charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The new law will not change that.
What does change is Mary's ability to sue her father.
Normally, a personal-injury victim has two years from the day of injury to sue the person or business that harmed him. But for victims of childhood sexual abuse, the old law was slightly different. It allowed lawsuits for two years after the victim turned the legal age of 18 - that is, until she was 20.
Victim advocates complained that this was unfair. They said many victims don't make the connection between their abuse and their injuries until many years later, well past age 20.
``We really had protected perpetrators of sexual abuse,'' Clute said. ``There was no civil remedy.''
So Clute lobbied in Richmond to change the law.
She won a state constitutional amendment last year, approved by voters in a statewide ballot in November.
The General Assembly followed by adopting the new statute of limitations this year. The new law gives victims two years from the time they learn of the connection between their abuse and their injuries. It only allows lawsuits against an individual who intentionally abuses a child, not against individuals or businesses - schools or day-care centers, for example - that are simply negligent.
As in all civil cases, the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases. In a civil case, the plaintiff can win by proving her case with a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.
In Mary's case, the statute of limitations began to run when she underwent psychiatric therapy in 1994. She had until 1996 to sue her father.
In her lawsuit, Mary says she ``did not understand how she had been injured and that the injuries were caused by the wrongful actions and sexual abuse'' until she went through therapy.
Mary is suing her father for $1 million in general damages, plus $350,000 in punitive damages, the maximum in Virginia. The lawsuit claims eight causes of action: assault and battery, rape, sodomy, incestuous abuse, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional harm, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of parental duty.
Clute said she knows of no similar cases pending in Virginia, but she will soon file several more herself, including one in Chesapeake this week in which three sisters were allegedly molested by a family member years ago.
Still, no one expects a flood of lawsuits under the new law.
``It's only going to serve a very few people,'' Coyle said. ``You've got to have money and wherewithal to bring a suit.''
KEYWORDS: SEX CRIME CHILD MOLESTER by CNB