Kentucky HB 595 — Eliminating the Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Abuse

What Is Kentucky House Bill 595?

Kentucky House Bill 595, introduced by Representative Chad R. Aull (Kentucky’s 79th House District), is currently before the Kentucky General Assembly’s House Judiciary Committee. It would amend KRS 413.249 to eliminate the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault and abuse claims in Kentucky.

For abuse occurring after the bill’s effective date: There would be no statute of limitations. A civil action could be brought at any time — years or decades after the abuse — against both the individual perpetrator and any institution or entity whose employee, officer, volunteer, or agent caused, enabled, or concealed the abuse. Covered entities expressly include private organizations, churches, schools, and — significantly — governmental entities, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, cities, counties, and their agencies.

For claims that have already expired: HB 595 includes a revival provision, but it faces two serious problems that every survivor should understand before drawing conclusions about their own situation.

Problem One — The revival window runs from the wrong date. As currently written, revived claims must be filed within five years of the date the original statute of limitations expired — not five years from when HB 595 passes. For survivors whose deadlines lapsed in the 1990s or early 2000s — the majority of adult survivors coming forward today — this window has already closed under the bill’s current language.

Problem Two — A controlling Kentucky Supreme Court decision raises serious constitutional questions. In Thompson v. Killary, 683 S.W.3d 641 (Ky. 2024), the Kentucky Supreme Court held 6-1 that once a statute of limitations defense has vested, the legislature cannot revive it. The Court applied that ruling to strike down the identical revival language already in KRS 413.249. That decision is the law of Kentucky today and creates a significant constitutional obstacle to any revival provision — including HB 595’s.

But the fight is not over. Courts evolve, and judicial compositions change over time. The lone dissent in Thompson — written by Justice Bisig — makes a carefully reasoned argument that revival of childhood sexual abuse claims serves a compelling governmental interest, is narrowly tailored, and survives even strict constitutional scrutiny. That dissent is a roadmap for future litigation and future legislation. Notably, Maryland has already declined to follow Thompson. The constitutional argument must be pressed, preserved, and built into the legislative record — and it will be.

Why the Statute of Limitations Has Always Failed Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse

The research is unambiguous. A peer-reviewed study published in Child Abuse & Neglect (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003) examined 218 child sexual abuse victims and documented the specific forces that cause survivors to remain silent for decades:

• Fear of retaliation, punishment, or harm to loved ones — many abusers threatened victims directly
• Relationship to the perpetrator — 89% of intrafamilial abuse victims either delayed disclosure or never disclosed during childhood
• Self-blame — children internalize responsibility for what was done to them, a well-documented consequence of abuse by trusted adults
• Fear of family destruction — particularly where the abuser was a parent, relative, clergy member, or trusted authority figure
• Developmental and cognitive limitations — young children often lacked the framework to understand that what was happening was wrong
• Institutional disbelief — when children did tell, they were frequently dismissed

These are not excuses. They are the predictable psychological consequences of the crime itself. Statutes of limitation that fail to account for these realities effectively protect abusers rather than survivors.

Justice Bisig recognized this directly in her Thompson dissent, noting that the legislature was “keenly aware of the delayed reporting of abuse that happens to young children” — and that the compelling governmental interest in providing a remedy for survivors is both “evident and undoubtedly compelling.”

A Gap That Needs to Be Fixed — And a Constitutional Foundation That Must Be Built

HB 595’s elimination of the statute of limitations going forward is historic. But the bill as currently written leaves behind the very survivors most likely to come forward today — those abused in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, whose legal deadlines expired long before they were psychologically ready to act.

William F. McMurry is actively advocating for two amendments to HB 595:

First, a revival window that runs from the date of enactment rather than from when the original deadline expired, giving all survivors a meaningful and equal opportunity to act.

Second, explicit legislative findings articulating the compelling governmental interest in reviving these claims — grounded in the documented science of childhood trauma and delayed disclosure. Strong legislative findings are the foundation that will allow courts to uphold this provision when it is challenged. And it will be challenged.

The more clearly the General Assembly states why this revival is necessary, the stronger the constitutional case becomes when the courts — with potentially different compositions — revisit the question.

About William F. McMurry

William F. McMurry has devoted a significant part of his career to representing adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse — and he brings to that work something no credential can confer: personal understanding.

Over 25 years, he has privately interviewed more than one thousand adult survivors, approximately 75% of whom had never previously disclosed their abuse to another person. His own family was shattered by childhood sexual abuse — his baby sister was repeatedly abused by a neighbor for years before she was finally able to share her story with him and their family decades later.

His record in this area of law is unmatched in Kentucky:

• Lead counsel in the $25.7 million settlement against the Archdiocese of Louisville on behalf of 243 survivors — the largest settlement ever paid exclusively from diocesan assets at the time
• Lead counsel for survivors in a nationwide class action against the Vatican (The Holy See), successfully defeating the Vatican’s claim to foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
• Lead counsel for 43 survivors of abuse at a Kentucky orphanage operated by the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth
• Board-Certified Medical Malpractice and Legal Malpractice Trial Specialist — Kentucky Super Lawyers, Top 50 in Kentucky, 2025

What You Can Do Right Now

HB 595 is before the House Judiciary Committee now. Please contact the committee members and urge them to support the bill — and to strengthen its retroactive revival provision with both corrected timing language and explicit legislative findings that will give courts the constitutional foundation to uphold it.

CALL TO ACTION — Tell Kentucky’s Legislators: Support and Strengthen HB 595

Please Take Five Minutes to Make Your Voice Heard

Kentucky House Bill 595 would permanently eliminate the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims in Kentucky — a historic and long-overdue reform. The bill is currently before the House Judiciary Committee, introduced by Representative Chad R. Aull of District 79.

We are asking every person who visits this page to contact the committee members directly. You do not need to share your personal story. A brief, direct message in your own words is enough. You may use, adapt, or personalize the suggested message below.

Suggested Message

Subject: Please Support and Strengthen HB 595 — Justice for Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse

Dear Representative [Name]:

I am writing to urge your support for House Bill 595, which would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault and abuse in Kentucky.

There is no category of crime more universally condemned than the sexual abuse of a child. And yet Kentucky’s current laws continue to deny justice to survivors who were unable to come forward within an arbitrary legal window — a window that bears no relationship to how trauma actually works in a human being’s life.

Research has established clearly that survivors of childhood sexual abuse frequently carry their trauma in silence for decades, held there by fear, shame, threats from their abusers, loyalty to family, and the simple inability of a child’s mind to fully process what was done to them. Many survivors do not recognize the connection between their childhood abuse and the suffering they have carried into adulthood until they are in their 40s or 50s. By then, under current Kentucky law, their legal rights have expired.

HB 595 would end that injustice going forward — and I urge you to support its passage without delay.

I also ask that you consider strengthening the bill’s retroactive revival provision in two important ways. First, the revival window should run from the date of enactment — not from when the original deadline expired — so that all survivors have a meaningful and equal opportunity to act. Second, the bill should include explicit legislative findings articulating the compelling governmental interest in reviving these claims, grounded in the documented science of childhood trauma and delayed disclosure. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Thompson v. Killary has raised constitutional questions about revival provisions of this kind. The answer lies not in abandoning the effort, but in building the strongest possible legislative record in support of it. Strong findings give future courts — with potentially different compositions — the constitutional foundation to uphold the revival provision when it is challenged.

Kentucky’s survivors have waited long enough. Please support and strengthen HB 595.

[Your name, city, and county]

How to Send Your Message

Copy and paste the address blocks below directly into your email’s To: and Cc: fields, paste the message above into the body, personalize it if you wish, and send.

TO: House Judiciary Committee Members (paste this entire line into your To: field)

daniel.elliott@lrc.ky.gov; jennifer.decker@kylegislature.gov; kim.banta@kylegislature.gov; jared.bauman@lrc.ky.gov; john.blanton@lrc.ky.gov; lindsey.burke@lrc.ky.gov; stephanie.dietz@kylegislature.gov; patrick.flannery@lrc.ky.gov; peyton.griffee@kylegislature.gov; nima.kulkarni@lrc.ky.gov; derek.lewis@lrc.ky.gov; savannah.maddox@lrc.ky.gov; marylou.marzian@kylegislature.gov; kimberly.moser@lrc.ky.gov; jason.nemes@kylegislature.gov; jason.petrie@lrc.ky.gov; tj.roberts@kylegislature.gov; pamela.stevenson@lrc.ky.gov; mitchum.whitaker@kylegislature.gov; wade.williams@kylegislature.gov; nick.wilson@kylegislature.gov

CC: House Leadership & Bill Sponsor (paste this entire line into your Cc: field)

chad.aull@kylegislature.gov; david.osborne@lrc.ky.gov; steven.rudy@lrc.ky.gov; david.meade@lrc.ky.gov; suzanne.miles@lrc.ky.gov; joshua.watkins@kylegislature.gov

Individual Committee Members — For Reference

CC’d — House Leadership & Bill Sponsor

This page is provided as a public service by William F. McMurry & Associates, Louisville, Kentucky. Encouraging civic participation in the legislative process is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.