You thought it was your fault. For years, maybe decades, you carried the weight of what happened in that rectory, that locker room, that dorm room, that gymnastics training facility. You blamed yourself for not speaking up, for not fighting harder, for not being stronger. When the nightmares came, when relationships fell apart, when you found yourself unable to trust anyone in authority, you assumed something was broken inside you. Maybe you told a therapist years later, your voice shaking as you described what a priest did after altar boy practice, what a scout leader did on a camping trip, what a team doctor did during a medical exam, what a professor did in his office. Maybe the therapist nodded and explained trauma responses, explained why you froze instead of fought, explained why your brain protected you by fragmenting the memories.
What your therapist might not have told you, because they might not have known themselves, is that you were not the only one. You were not the first. The person who abused you had often done it before. And according to lawsuits filed across the country, the institution that employed that person frequently knew, or had received warnings, or had moved that person from one location to another after previous complaints. The litigation alleges that decision-makers within these organizations made calculated choices to protect their reputation rather than protect children. They chose silence over safety. They chose the institution over you.
This is not speculation. This is what the court filings describe. This is what survivors have testified to under oath. This is what internal documents, disclosed through litigation and investigations, appear to show. If you were sexually abused by someone in a position of authority within the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, USA Gymnastics, or a university, and if that abuse has shaped your life in ways you are only now beginning to understand, what happened to you fits into a pattern that lawsuits allege was not accidental, but structural.
What Happened
Sexual abuse by someone in authority does not end when the physical act ends. It rewires your nervous system. It changes how you experience safety, trust, intimacy, and your own body. Survivors describe a feeling of fundamental wrongness that they cannot shake, a sense that they are damaged in ways other people are not. Some describe dissociation, the experience of watching their own life from a distance, unable to fully inhabit their body because their body was once a site of violation they could not escape.
The emotional aftermath often includes depression that feels like living underwater, anxiety that makes ordinary social interactions feel dangerous, and hypervigilance that means you are always scanning for threat. Many survivors struggle with substance use as a way to numb feelings that become overwhelming. Relationships fracture because intimacy triggers memories, because trust feels impossible, because explaining what happened means reliving it. Some survivors describe sexual dysfunction, an inability to experience physical closeness without panic or dissociation. Others describe the opposite, a pattern of risky sexual behavior that feels compulsive and shameful but impossible to stop.
The psychiatric diagnosis is often post-traumatic stress disorder, but that clinical term does not capture what it feels like to be triggered by the smell of incense in a church, by the sound of a whistle at a pool, by a certain tone of voice from someone in authority. It does not capture the flashbacks that arrive without warning, the nightmares that make sleep dangerous, the anniversary reactions that bring crushing despair on certain dates for reasons you cannot initially identify. It does not capture the rage that has nowhere to go, or the shame that feels like it has soaked into your bones.
Many survivors describe a delayed understanding of what happened to them. As children or teenagers, they often did not have the framework to name the abuse. They were told it was special attention, mentorship, love, or a secret that proved their maturity. It was sometimes only years later, when they had children of their own or heard another survivor speak publicly, that they recognized what was done to them as abuse. That delayed recognition often brings a second wave of trauma, a grieving for the years spent blaming themselves.
The Connection
The harm in institutional sexual abuse cases is not just the abuse itself, though that alone causes profound injury. The additional harm, which the lawsuits focus on, is the institutional response. According to the litigation, survivors often tried to report what happened and were met with disbelief, blame, or active suppression. They were told they misunderstood, that they were mistaken, that speaking about it would ruin their own reputation or hurt the institution. Some were told by religious authorities that they would be committing a sin by speaking. Some were told by athletic authorities that they would lose their place on the team. Some were told by school administrators that their academic future depended on silence.
Research on trauma makes clear that this institutional betrayal compounds the original harm. A 2008 study published in the Journal of Traumatic Stress found that institutional betrayal, defined as wrongdoing by a trusted institution, significantly predicted post-traumatic stress symptoms beyond the impact of the abuse itself. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Oregon, found that survivors who experienced institutional betrayal reported greater trauma symptoms, anxiety, and dissociation than survivors whose disclosures were met with institutional support.
The mechanism of harm in these cases is both psychological and social. When an institution protects an abuser rather than a victim, it communicates to that victim that they are expendable, that their suffering matters less than the institution's image. It isolates the survivor, making them believe no one will believe them. It allows the abuser to continue, often creating additional victims. And it prevents the survivor from accessing the support and validation that are critical for trauma recovery.
A 2014 study in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect examined institutional responses to sexual abuse allegations in religious organizations. The study found that institutional factors, including hierarchical structure, institutional reputation concerns, and cultural norms around authority and obedience, significantly influenced whether abuse was reported to law enforcement and whether survivors received support. The study documented patterns of moving accused individuals to new locations rather than removing them from positions of authority, a practice the researchers termed geographic solutions.
The long-term health impacts are well documented. A 2012 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine examined adverse childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, and found strong correlations with adult outcomes including depression, suicide attempts, substance use disorders, heart disease, cancer, and shortened lifespan. The study, which analyzed data from over 17,000 participants, found that the more adverse experiences a person had in childhood, the higher their risk for negative health outcomes across the lifespan. Importantly, the study found that the presence of protective factors, including supportive institutional responses, could mitigate some of these harms.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
The litigation against these institutions is built on the allegation that decision-makers knew abuse was occurring, knew the identities of abusers, and chose to conceal that information rather than report it to law enforcement or warn communities. The strength and specificity of these allegations vary by institution, but the pattern is similar across cases.
In Catholic Church cases, the allegations of institutional knowledge are extensive and supported by documents disclosed through litigation and investigations. The 2018 Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, which investigated six dioceses over a 70-year period, identified over 300 priests accused of abuse and over 1,000 survivors. The report described what it termed a playbook for concealing abuse, which according to the grand jury included strategies such as using euphemisms like boundary issues or inappropriate conduct in internal files rather than naming sexual abuse, sending accused priests for brief evaluations at church-run treatment facilities before returning them to ministry, and using confidentiality agreements to silence victims. The grand jury wrote that bishops and other church leaders kept abuse secret to avoid scandal.
The litigation alleges that church officials maintained secret archives documenting abuse allegations, accessible only to bishops, and that these archives were sometimes removed or destroyed when legal action appeared likely. A lawsuit filed in Minnesota in 2013 alleged that the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis maintained such a file and failed to disclose known abusers to law enforcement. According to documents disclosed in that case, the archdiocese received multiple reports about one priest beginning in 2008 but did not remove him from ministry until 2013, during which time the lawsuits allege additional children were abused.
In Boy Scouts of America cases, the litigation centers on what are known as the Ineligible Volunteer Files, sometimes called the perversion files. These were internal files maintained by the Boy Scouts beginning in the 1920s, documenting individuals who were removed from scouting due to allegations of child sexual abuse. In 2012, following a court order in a lawsuit in Oregon, approximately 1,200 files from 1965 to 1985 were released to the public. An expert who reviewed the files for that litigation testified that they documented over 1,000 alleged abusers and that in the majority of cases, there was no evidence the Boy Scouts reported the abuse to law enforcement.
The lawsuits allege that Boy Scouts officials knew that their system of background checks and volunteer screening was inadequate to prevent abuse, and that they were aware of the recidivist nature of child sexual abuse but continued to allow accused individuals to quietly resign and move to other troops or other youth-serving organizations. A lawsuit filed in Minnesota in 2015 alleged that a troop leader who abused scouts in the 1970s had previously been removed from a troop in another state for suspected abuse, but that the Boy Scouts did not prevent him from joining a new troop. According to court filings in that case, the Boy Scouts had a file on this individual but did not share it with the new troop.
In USA Gymnastics cases, the litigation focuses on the organization's response to reports about Larry Nassar, a team doctor who abused athletes for decades. According to a 2019 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General, the FBI received allegations about Nassar in July 2015, but agents did not follow proper procedures, did not document complaints for months, and made false statements about the investigation. During that delay, the lawsuits allege, Nassar continued to abuse athletes.
But the allegations against USA Gymnastics go beyond the Nassar case. Lawsuits filed by survivors allege that the organization had received complaints about other coaches and staff members for years and failed to act. According to documents disclosed in litigation, USA Gymnastics maintained files on individuals who were suspended or banned but did not always share that information with gyms where those individuals later worked. A 2017 investigation by the Indianapolis Star reviewed hundreds of cases and found that USA Gymnastics had received allegations involving at least 368 coaches over a 20-year period, and in many cases did not report the allegations to law enforcement or notify other gyms when coaches moved.
In university cases, the litigation allegations vary by institution but often involve similar patterns. Lawsuits against Michigan State University allege that university officials received reports about Larry Nassar as early as the 1990s but did not investigate thoroughly or remove him from contact with students. According to documents disclosed in that litigation, one MSU official was told by a victim in 2014 that Nassar had assaulted her, and the official consulted with another doctor who vouched for Nassar, and no further action was taken until law enforcement became involved years later.
Lawsuits against Penn State University regarding abuse by Jerry Sandusky allege that university officials, including the athletic director and a vice president, were told in 2001 that Sandusky had been witnessed sexually assaulting a boy in a university locker room, but they did not report it to law enforcement and allowed Sandusky continued access to campus and to children through his charity. Emails disclosed in that litigation show discussions among officials about how to handle the situation, with ultimate decisions that the lawsuits allege prioritized the university's reputation.
Lawsuits against the University of Southern California regarding abuse by gynecologist George Tyndall allege that the university received complaints from patients and staff about his conduct for decades, including taking inappropriate photographs and making sexual comments during exams, but allowed him to continue treating students until 2016. According to documents disclosed in that litigation, a nurse filed a complaint with the university in 2000, and a rape crisis counselor reported concerns in 2014, but Tyndall was not removed from his position until after an investigation by the university in 2016.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The litigation does not just allege that these institutions failed to act. It alleges active concealment, a deliberate effort to prevent information from reaching law enforcement, parents, and potential victims. The complaints describe this as a pattern and practice, not isolated failures.
In Catholic Church cases, the lawsuits describe what they characterize as a coordinated system of secrecy. The Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report stated that church officials used their authority over vulnerable victims to keep them quiet, sometimes telling them that reporting abuse would be sinful or would harm the church community. The report described cases where victims were required to sign confidentiality agreements as part of settlement agreements, preventing them from speaking publicly about abuse. The lawsuits allege that this practice prevented other potential victims from learning about the danger.
The litigation also alleges that the church used its institutional resources to discourage reporting. Some complaints describe victims being told by church officials that their allegations would be investigated internally through canon law, the church's own legal system, rather than being reported to law enforcement. The lawsuits allege that this internal process often resulted in minimal consequences for abusers and left victims without legal recourse. A lawsuit filed in California in 2019 alleged that when a victim reported abuse to a bishop, the bishop told him that the matter would be handled privately and that involving law enforcement would not be in the victim's best interest.
In Boy Scouts cases, the litigation alleges that the organization's practice of maintaining the Ineligible Volunteer Files as confidential documents prevented parents and law enforcement from learning about risks. The lawsuits claim that when individuals were placed in these files, they were often allowed to resign quietly without explanation to the troop or the families of scouts they had supervised. A lawsuit filed in New Jersey in 2020 alleged that a scout leader abused multiple boys over several years, and when parents finally reported him to police, they learned that the Boy Scouts had a file on him from a previous suspected incident in another state, but no one had informed their troop.
The litigation also alleges that the Boy Scouts lobbied against legislative efforts to extend statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, which would have allowed more survivors to bring lawsuits. Court filings in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case, filed in 2020, included documents showing that the organization spent resources tracking and opposing such legislation in multiple states. The lawsuits characterize this as an effort to prevent accountability.
In USA Gymnastics cases, the litigation alleges that the organization failed to create a safe reporting system and actively discouraged athletes from speaking about abuse. According to testimony in congressional hearings in 2018, survivors reported that they were told by coaches that complaining about training methods or staff conduct would jeopardize their position on teams. Olympic gymnast Simone Biles testified that the culture within USA Gymnastics made it difficult to report abuse because athletes were taught not to question authority.
The lawsuits also allege that USA Gymnastics did not have adequate policies requiring staff to report suspected abuse to law enforcement. According to documents disclosed in litigation, the organization revised its policies multiple times over the years, but the lawsuits claim these policies were not consistently enforced and that there was no centralized system for tracking complaints across gyms. A lawsuit filed in California in 2018 alleged that a coach who was banned by USA Gymnastics for misconduct was later found coaching at a different gym, and that gym had not been notified of the ban.
In university cases, the litigation allegations of concealment often focus on institutional decisions to handle reports internally rather than involving law enforcement. Lawsuits against Michigan State allege that when victims reported Nassar, university officials conducted their own inquiries but did not refer the matter to police. According to documents disclosed in that litigation, the university had a police department capable of investigating, but administrators chose to handle the reports through internal channels. The lawsuits allege this was done to protect the university's reputation and Nassar's research funding.
Lawsuits against Penn State allege that after officials were told about Sandusky in 2001, they discussed reporting it to outside authorities but ultimately decided against it. Emails disclosed in that case show one official writing that he was uncomfortable with their decision but would support it. The lawsuits allege that this decision allowed Sandusky to continue abusing children for another decade.
Lawsuits against USC regarding Tyndall allege that the university entered into a settlement agreement with Tyndall in 2017 that allowed him to resign with a financial payout and required both parties to keep the terms confidential. The lawsuits claim this agreement prevented students from learning why Tyndall left and allowed him to continue practicing medicine elsewhere. According to court filings, the university did not notify the Medical Board of California about complaints against Tyndall until after media reports about his conduct were published in 2018.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
If you have been in therapy for depression, anxiety, or relationship difficulties, and if your therapist knows you were abused as a child, you might wonder why they did not tell you that the institution might have known. The answer is usually that they did not know themselves. Information about institutional knowledge and concealment has come to light primarily through litigation, investigations, and journalism, not through medical literature or clinical training.
Mental health professionals are trained to treat trauma symptoms, but they are not typically trained in the legal or institutional dimensions of abuse cases. They know that childhood sexual abuse can cause lifelong mental health impacts, but they may not know that internal documents from specific organizations show patterns of concealment. That information exists in court files, grand jury reports, and investigative journalism, not in the journals and textbooks that inform clinical practice.
Additionally, for many years, statutes of limitations prevented survivors from bringing lawsuits, which meant that institutional conduct was not publicly examined through the legal process. It is only in the past two decades, as states have begun to open or extend windows for survivors to file lawsuits regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred, that the scope of institutional knowledge has become visible through disclosed documents.
In cases involving the Catholic Church, much of what is now known about institutional practices came from litigation that began gaining significant traction in the early 2000s, particularly following the Boston Globe investigation published in 2002 that revealed patterns of abuse and concealment in the Boston Archdiocese. That reporting, which won the Pulitzer Prize, prompted survivors across the country to come forward and prompted investigations and lawsuits that led to the disclosure of internal church documents.
In Boy Scouts cases, the disclosure of the Ineligible Volunteer Files in 2012 was a turning point in public understanding. Before that court-ordered release, most therapists and even many attorneys were not aware of the scope of the Boy Scouts internal tracking of accused abusers.
In USA Gymnastics cases, widespread awareness came only after the Nassar criminal trial in 2018, when survivors gave victim impact statements that were broadcast nationally, and after subsequent investigations revealed organizational failures. The Indianapolis Star investigation in 2016 brought national attention, but many of the specific allegations about institutional knowledge came out through lawsuits filed after that reporting.
The lawsuits themselves allege that institutions contributed to this information gap by requiring confidentiality in settlement agreements, which prevented survivors who did come forward from speaking publicly about what happened and what the institution knew. The litigation claims this practice ensured that other survivors, therapists, and the public remained unaware of patterns of abuse and concealment.
Who Is Affected
If you were sexually abused by someone in a position of authority within an institution, and if that institution is named in ongoing litigation or has been the subject of investigations, you may be eligible to participate in the legal process. The specific criteria vary by state and by institution, but here is what the general landscape looks like.
For Catholic Church cases, if you were abused by a priest, deacon, nun, teacher, coach, or other church employee or volunteer, you may qualify. The abuse could have occurred in a church, school, rectory, on a trip, or in any setting where the abuser had access to you through their church role. Many states have opened or extended windows for survivors to file lawsuits even if the abuse occurred decades ago. As of 2024, over a dozen states have passed laws allowing survivors to file lawsuits regardless of when the abuse occurred, either permanently or during specific revival windows. These states include California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, Delaware, and others, with additional states considering similar legislation.
For Boy Scouts cases, if you were abused by a scout leader, assistant leader, volunteer, or employee while you were a scout or in a scouting-related activity, you may qualify. The Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy in February 2020, and as part of that process, a claims filing period was opened. Over 82,000 survivors filed claims in that bankruptcy case, one of the largest mass tort cases in United States history. The bankruptcy plan, which was confirmed in 2022, established a settlement fund, and survivors who filed claims are being evaluated for compensation. If you did not file a claim during the bankruptcy process, your options may be more limited, but you should consult with an attorney to understand whether you can still pursue a claim depending on your state and circumstances.
For USA Gymnastics cases, if you were abused by a coach, trainer, doctor, or staff member while you were an athlete in a USA Gymnastics-sanctioned program, you may qualify. This includes abuse by Larry Nassar, but also abuse by other individuals affiliated with the organization. USA Gymnastics also filed for bankruptcy, in December 2018, and a settlement was reached in 2021 that included a compensation fund for survivors. Additional lawsuits have been filed against gyms, universities, and other entities where abuse occurred.
For university cases, if you were abused by a professor, doctor, coach, administrator, or other university employee or affiliate while you were a student or patient, you may qualify. Cases have been filed against numerous universities beyond those mentioned above, including the University of Michigan, Ohio State University, Columbia University, and others. The specific legal landscape varies by institution and by state, depending on statutes of limitations and whether the university is public or private, which affects certain legal immunities.
The abuse does not have to have been reported at the time it occurred for you to qualify now. Many survivors never told anyone until adulthood. You do not need to have physical evidence. Testimony and contemporaneous circumstances are often sufficient. You do not need to remember every detail. Trauma affects memory, and the legal process understands that.
What matters is that you were abused by someone in a position of authority within an institution, and that the institution is alleged to have known or should have known about the risk that person posed. If you have wondered for years whether what happened to you counts, whether it was bad enough, whether anyone would believe you, the answer is that it counts, it was bad enough, and the legal system has begun to believe survivors in ways it did not before.
Where Things Stand
The legal landscape for institutional sexual abuse cases has changed dramatically in the past two decades. For most of the 20th century, statutes of limitations prevented adult survivors from filing lawsuits, on the theory that legal claims should be brought promptly. But research on trauma and delayed disclosure, combined with advocacy by survivors, has led many states to recognize that childhood sexual abuse is different, that survivors often do not disclose until adulthood, and that institutions should be held accountable even for abuse that occurred decades ago.
As of 2024, over 20 states have either eliminated statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits or opened revival windows allowing survivors to file lawsuits for abuse that previously would have been time-barred. These legal changes have led to an enormous increase in litigation. California opened a three-year window in 2020, and over 5,000 lawsuits were filed during that period. New York opened a two-year window in 2019, later extended due to the pandemic, and over 11,000 lawsuits were filed. New Jersey opened a two-year window in 2019, and thousands of lawsuits were filed. Each of these windows has now closed, but some states have opened new windows or made their windows permanent.
For Catholic Church cases, over 20 dioceses and religious orders have filed for bankruptcy due to the volume of abuse lawsuits, including dioceses in Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, Harrisburg, Rockville Centre, and archdioceses in numerous other cities. These bankruptcies have resulted in settlement funds totaling billions of dollars. The bankruptcy process requires survivors to file claims by specific deadlines, and those claims are then evaluated to determine compensation. Amounts vary widely depending on factors including the severity and duration of abuse, the age at which it occurred, and the size of the settlement fund relative to the number of claims.
In addition to bankruptcy settlements, thousands of individual lawsuits against dioceses that have not filed for bankruptcy are pending or have been settled. Some of these cases have gone to trial, resulting in jury verdicts. In 2018, a jury in Montana awarded over $35 million to a man who was abused by a priest on a Native American reservation. In 2019, a jury in New York awarded $8 million to a man who was abused by a priest in the 1970s. These verdicts, while not common because most cases settle, have signaled that juries are willing to hold institutions accountable.
For Boy Scouts cases, the bankruptcy filing in 2020 stayed all pending lawsuits and required survivors to file claims in the bankruptcy case instead. Over 82,000 claims were filed, far more than the Boy Scouts had anticipated. The bankruptcy plan, confirmed in 2022, included contributions from the Boy Scouts, local councils, insurers, and sponsoring organizations including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the United Methodist Church, totaling over $2.4 billion. That settlement fund is now being distributed to survivors based on evaluations of their claims. The process has been slow and complicated, and many survivors have expressed frustration with the amount of compensation offered relative to the harm they suffered.
For USA Gymnastics cases, the bankruptcy settlement reached in 2021 included a $380 million fund for survivors. That amount was later increased following additional negotiations, with contributions from insurers, USA Gymnastics, and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee. Over 500 survivors filed claims. Separately, Michigan State University reached a $500 million settlement with over 300 survivors of Nassar, one of the largest settlements in the history of institutional abuse cases.
For university cases, the legal landscape varies widely. Some universities have reached large settlements, while others are actively litigating. USC reached an $852 million settlement with former patients of Tyndall, and later an additional $1.1 billion settlement with a separate group of survivors, making it one of the largest abuse settlements in history. University of Michigan is facing over 1,000 lawsuits related to abuse by a former doctor, Robert Anderson, and has reached a $490 million settlement with many of those survivors, though some lawsuits are ongoing. Ohio State University reached a $40 million settlement with over 160 survivors of abuse by a former team doctor, Richard Strauss, though many survivors rejected that settlement as inadequate and litigation continues.
The timeline for new cases depends on the state where the abuse occurred and the current status of that state's statute of limitations. Some states have permanent lookback windows, meaning survivors can file lawsuits at any time. Other states had temporary windows that have now closed. If you are considering whether to participate in the legal process, timing matters, and you should consult with an attorney in your state to understand the current law.
What Happens in These Cases
The legal process typically begins with filing a lawsuit or, in bankruptcy cases, filing a claim form. You will likely need to provide a written description of what happened, including who abused you, when and where it occurred, and what impact it has had on your life. You may need to provide medical records, therapy records, or other documentation, though the specific requirements vary by case.
In many cases, survivors are asked to participate in mediation or settlement negotiations before a case goes to trial. This can mean describing your experience to a mediator or to attorneys for the institution. Some survivors find this process empowering, an opportunity to be heard. Others find it retraumatizing. You have the right to have your attorney guide you through this process and to make decisions about how much you want to participate.
Most institutional abuse cases settle rather than go to trial, but settlement amounts vary widely. Factors that affect valuation include the severity and duration of abuse, the age at which it occurred, the credibility of corroborating evidence, the financial resources of the institution or insurance coverage, and the number of other survivors with claims. In bankruptcy cases, compensation is often determined by a formula that assigns point values to different factors, and survivors receive a pro-rata share of the settlement fund based on their points. This process can feel impersonal and inadequate, and many survivors have expressed anger that their trauma is being reduced to a number.
If a case does go to trial, you may be asked to testify. This means answering questions from your attorney and from the defense attorney, in front of a jury. Some courts allow accommodations such as testifying behind a screen or by video to reduce the trauma of facing the defendant or institution representatives. Jury verdicts in abuse cases can be substantial, but they can also be appealed, which means additional years of litigation.
The emotional toll of participating in the legal process is significant, and survivors should have therapeutic support. Many survivors describe the legal process as a second trauma, having to recount the abuse repeatedly to strangers and having their credibility questioned by defense attorneys. But many also describe it as necessary, a way to hold the institution accountable and to prevent future abuse.
What This Means
If you are reading this and recognizing yourself, recognizing the weight you have carried and the ways your life has been shaped by what someone did to you and by what an institution failed to do, you need to know that it was not random. It was not bad luck. It was not something broken in you that invited the abuse or made you unable to recover from it.
What happened to you was part of a pattern that the lawsuits allege was created and sustained by institutional decisions. The litigation describes systems designed to protect reputation over children, to preserve authority over safety, to avoid legal liability over moral responsibility. The court filings allege that decision-makers knew that children were being harmed, that they had information that could have prevented additional harm, and that they chose silence.
The reason you did not know this, the reason it took years or decades to understand that the institution bore responsibility, is that the concealment worked. The lawsuits allege it was designed to work. Survivors were isolated, told they were alone, told no one would believe them, told that speaking would harm them more than staying silent. And so many stayed silent, carrying a burden that was never theirs to carry.
You are not alone. The 82,000 survivors who filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy are not an anomaly. The thousands of survivors who have filed lawsuits against the Catholic Church are not outliers. The athletes who came forward about USA Gymnastics, the students who came forward about their universities, they are telling a collective truth about what happens when institutions prioritize themselves over the people they were supposed to protect. Your experience fits into that truth. What was done to you, and what was not done to protect you, was part of something larger, something documented, something that courts and juries are now being asked to address. You were a child. You trusted. That trust was betrayed not just by one person but by a system. And that system, according to the lawsuits, knew what it was doing.