LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The Michigan Supreme Court is set to deliberate a critical case with far-reaching implications on sex assault statute of limitations in the state.
Oral arguments in the case, McLain v. Lobert, are expected to be heard in the spring of 2024. The outcome could result in a reinterpretation of Michigan’s statute of limitations involving sex assault as the court decides if the changes made in 2018 apply to this case.
What are the details of the lawsuit?
The McLain v. Lobert civil case involves a lawsuit that was originally filed in 2021 in Livingston County on behalf of Brian McClain who has alleged that he suffered multiple sexual assaults while a minor at W.J. Maxey Boys Training School in Whitmore Lake, about 20 minutes north of Ann Arbor. McClain was 16-years-old at the time of the assaults which allegedly occurred in 1998 and 1999. He is now 41-years-old.
Because the school was closed in 2015 due to budget cuts, it is not listed as a defendant in the case. Instead, defendants are listed as being the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore and Father Richard Lobert, who provided services to the Maxey school under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Lansing including religious services and counseling the youth there.
According to WKAR, public media out of Michigan State University, 75-year-old Lobert, “is a priest of the Archdiocese of Baltimore in Maryland and is on ministerial leave pending the outcome of the investigation. Lobert had been serving as the chaplain of Father Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor since 1995 and resigned from his role at the school in 2021.”
When were changes made?
In 2018, changes were made to Michigan law regarding the statute of limitations for sexual assault. They were signed into law by Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, and are part of what’s commonly referred to as the “Nassar bills,” which came about after Michigan State University sports doctor, Larry Nassar, was convicted and sentenced in federal and local courts after sexually assaulting at least 265 young girls and women under the guise of performing medical treatments. The 2018 amendment now allows for more time for victims of sexual assault to come forward.
However, at odds is the interpretation of MCL 600.5851b which extended the statute of limitations for individuals who, while a minor were “the victim of criminal sexual conduct.” The law outlines that person “may commence an action to recover damages sustained because of the criminal sexual conduct at any time before whichever of the following is later: (a) The individual reaches the age of 28 years. (b) Three years after the date the individual discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, both the individual’s injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the criminal sexual conduct.”
Attorneys for McLain say that their client only began to process and share what had happened to him when he started meeting with a therapist in 2020 and they argue that he’s legally within his rights to bring forth a civil lawsuit against the defendants.
What is the history of the case?
The previous age before the law was changed was 18. Michigan legislators have been in discussions to change the age to 52 but haven’t been able to get the legislation to the finish line.
MORE NEWS: Sterling Heights to Residents: We Don’t Cost as Much as Lansing
The Lobert case was originally heard by Judge Suzanne Geddis of the 44th District, who said McLain met the deadline to file his claim. In her decision she said, “The statute allows a victim to bring a claim ‘at any time’ before turning 28, or within three years of connection with assault with the injury, whichever is later.”
However, when the case went to the Michigan Court of Appeals, they sided with the defendants. They said that at issue in the appeal was the retroactivity of 600.5851b(1)(b). They concluded that based on the language of the statute “The Legislature plainly did not intend for that subsection to apply retroactively to claims that were already time-barred before the statute was enacted in 2018.”
McClain’s attorney Ven Johnson of Ven Johnson Law held a press conference this week about the Michigan Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case and said, “We are absolutely ecstatic, we greatly appreciate the Michigan Supreme Court in September of 23 saying ‘we want to hear this case.” Johnson added, “This is one of the first times that the Michigan Supreme Court or any Supreme Court from across the country is going to be hearing a case with a new statute of limitation that takes into consideration the delay that childhood trauma has in these folks coming forward to talk about their abuse.”
What is the alleged victim saying?
Christopher Desmond, chief appellate attorney for Ven Johnson Law, said at the press conference, ”People like Mr. McLain very typically don’t come forward right away and don’t necessarily understand the nature of what occurred to them when they were children. And so when the legislature has taken steps to provide a remedy to those individuals, it’s incumbent that our court system allows those cases to go forward.”
Johnson added, “82.9% did not report any of the rapes they experienced during childhood.”
McLain was in attendance at the press conference as well and talked about what happened to him. He said, “Confession, ultimately is what was supposed to be going on…What had happened is I spoke with him (Lobert) about something I had done as a juvenile and I wanted to repent for it and he ultimately used that against me and on numerous occasions used it against me to have me do things to him sexually.”
He added, “I totally, totally went into a depression and I isolated myself for the next couple of decades is exactly what happened. The feeling at that point… I was scared, I didn’t have an outlet to talk to anybody about it… Ultimately, somebody who I thought who a higher authority from God was abusing me so I didn’t really know who to talk to about it or how to say anything about it.”
Although the defendants claim that the allegations have reached the state’s statute of limitations, Johnson says that the lawsuit is valid under the 2018 amendment to the Michigan law. He explained, “That takes into consideration the average the delay that childhood trauma has in these folks coming forward to talk about their abuse.”
The Diocese of Lansing makes a statement.
A spokesperson for the Diocese of Lansing provided the following statement to CBS News Detroit regarding the case recently: “Because the ruling of Michigan’s Court of Appeals correctly applied Michigan law, we are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold that ruling. As the matter is in litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.” Additionally, David Kerr, Director of Communications at the Diocese of Lansing had commented to Michigan Advance in November saying: “It is the Diocese of Lansing’s position that Mr. McLain’s allegations are barred by the statute of limitations.”
Since the alleged assaults occurred in 1999, the plaintiff has reportedly been diagnosed with adjustment disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and requires “medication throughout his lifetime” according to court documents. Judge Geddis wrote in her order that McLain became dependent on alcohol and opiates and suffered with numerous issues after feeling powerless to refuse Lobert’s demands.
The W.J. Maxey Boys Training School school was a juvenile corrections facility that served delinquent male youths ages 12 to 21-years-old. The facility had sixty beds and provided services to youth who needed intensive or specialized rehabilitation treatment with a high level of security and structure. The youth who were sent there were in “state custody.”
Are there other cases linked to this one?
This is not the first time that the Maxey Training School has been looked at for impropriety. The US Dept. of Justice toured the facility in the spring of 2003 during an investigation, looking into conditions of confinement at the school. They concluded the investigation in April of 2004 and found that “certain conditions at Maxey violate the constitutional and/or statutory rights of juveniles confined at the facility.” Those violations included physical abuse, sexual abuse and mental and emotional abuse. They also said that the school’s model promoted violence among the peer groups. The state agreed to comply with the Dept. of Justice recommendations in a memorandum of understanding.
