## Facts

- Judith E. Swartz was born in 1968 to Pamela Van Beek and was adopted in 1976 by James M. Swartz, who later married Van Beek in 1979; they divorced in 1983.
- Judith alleged James Swartz sexually abused her from November 1979 through September 27, 1982.
- On February 28, 1983, a jury convicted James Swartz of sexually abusing Judith; he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
- On November 17, 1992, Judith filed a civil damages action against James Swartz, Pamela Van Beek, and Casualty Reciprocal Exchange (an insurer).
- Judith alleged Van Beek negligently supervised and protected her, failed to warn her about James Swartz’s danger, and failed to obtain adequate medical care after his criminal conviction.
- Judith alleged James Swartz was negligent for failing to keep away from her, failing to obtain help to prevent abuse, and failing to obtain medical treatment after his conviction.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, relying primarily on parental immunity and statutes of limitation, and denied Judith’s motion for summary judgment.
- Judith appealed, challenging the parental-immunity ruling, the lack of an evidentiary hearing, denial of her summary-judgment motion, and the limitations rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether parental immunity barred negligence claims arising from a parent’s sexual abuse of a child and related alleged failures by the nonabusing parent.
2. Whether the trial court could grant summary judgment on parental immunity without an evidentiary record addressing whether the suit would impair family harmony, particularly as to the mother.
3. Whether limitations statutes (and statutory changes) barred the claims, including whether amendments could be applied retroactively to extinguish claims without allowing a reasonable time to sue.
4. Whether Judith was entitled to summary judgment on negligent infliction of emotional distress against James Swartz and on negligence against Van Beek.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court rejected the trial court’s broad use of parental immunity and held parental immunity did not automatically bar negligence claims tied to intrafamilial sexual abuse.
- The court ruled the claims were not barred by statutes of limitation because limitations changes could not retroactively cut off existing claims without a reasonable opportunity to file.
- The court indicated further proceedings were required, including development of an evidentiary record on parental-immunity considerations as to Van Beek.
- The court upheld the denial of Judith’s motion for summary judgment because material factual and legal issues (including duty and causation) remained.

## Legal Principles

- Parental immunity exists to protect parental authority and family harmony, but its rationale may not apply where a parent’s conduct (such as sexual abuse) has already destroyed the parent-child relationship.
- Courts should not apply parental immunity categorically to bar civil claims arising from criminal sexual abuse within the family; related negligence theories may proceed depending on the connection to the abuse and case-specific facts.
- Where parental-immunity analysis depends on facts about the family relationship and the effect of litigation on family harmony, summary judgment is improper without an adequate evidentiary basis.
- A new or amended statute of limitations cannot be applied retroactively to extinguish an accrued cause of action unless the claimant is afforded a reasonable time to file suit after the change.
- Summary judgment for a plaintiff is improper when genuine disputes remain about elements such as duty, causation, and the legal characterization of claimed injuries.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Court of Appeals limited parental immunity in civil suits stemming from intrafamilial child sexual abuse and held that limitations changes could not retroactively bar accrued claims without allowing a reasonable time to sue; it reversed key portions of summary judgment and remanded for further factual development and proceedings.


Swartz v. Swartz, 887 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)