ILNews

Issues of fact in molestation suit against father

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion of summary judgment by a father accused of molesting two of his adopted sons when they were children. The appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his wife's conduct upon learning about the molestations amounted to collusion with the father in concealing the molestation.

In Frederick William LaCava v. Daniel LaCava and Geoffrey LaCava, No. 49A04-0808-CV-451, Frederick LaCava argued claims by Daniel and Geoffrey LaCava were barred by the statute of limitations and that in the absence of expert opinion regarding the son's claims of repressed memory, their complaint can't withstand summary judgment.

Daniel and Geoffrey claimed Frederick molested them as boys until the late 1980s and they repressed memories of it until 2005 when they found child pornography stored on Frederick's computer. They filed suit in 2005 against their father, after the two-year statute of limitations for them to have filed once they became adults expired.

As children, they told their mother Elizabeth about the abuse and she asked Frederick to leave, and they later divorced. She never reported the abuse to the authorities and allowed them to continue to see their father unsupervised. She even told them to keep quiet about the molestations when it came out Frederick molested two foster children in their home.

In her affidavit, Elizabeth claimed Daniel and Geoffrey spoke about their molestations before 2005. Their brother Andrew said in his affidavit that Geoffrey confronted their father in 1999 about the abuse in front of Andrew.

Daniel died before the motion for summary judgment was filed.

Although the statue of limitations had passed for Geoffrey and Daniel to file their suit based on their ages, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment can estop a parental defendant from asserting the statute of limitations when he has, by deception or violation of duty, concealed from the plaintiff material facts preventing the plaintiff from discovering the potential cause of action, wrote Judge Margret Robb. Frederick claimed the doctrine doesn't apply because there's no dispute Elizabeth knew about the molestations in 1989 and her knowledge should be imputed to Daniel and Geoffrey.

The appellate court found there to be a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Elizabeth's conduct when she learned about her son's molestations amounted to collusion with her husband in concealing the molestation from Daniel and Geoffrey, wrote the judge.

There is also an issue of fact as to whether Daniel and Geoffrey remembered the molestations before 2005 based on conversations they had with others.

The appellate court also ruled that based on Doe v. Shutls-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 745, (Ind. 1999), Daniel and Geoffrey will need expert testimony to ultimately prevail on their claims. The trial court denied their request for a third extension of time in order to have Geoffrey evaluated by a psychiatrist and get an expert opinion on their repressed memories claims. However, the Court of Appeals held that testimony isn't required at this stage of the case. Judge Robb wrote in a footnote that Daniel didn't meet with an expert before his death, so although his claim should withstand summary judgment, it would be appropriate to voluntarily dismiss him from this litigation.

The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT