Going Further Than the Maryland Child Victims Act

On April 26, Samantha Dos Santos, a partner in the Maryland law firm Plaxen Adler Muncy, published an op-ed in The Baltimore Sun titled “Maryland must pursue justice for all sex-abuse survivors.”

In it, Dos Santos addressed the benefits and shortcomings of Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023. The act lifted the statute of limitations on civil lawsuits in child sexual abuse cases, making it easier for survivors to pursue justice. However, Dos Santos argued that many attorneys are now focusing their efforts on going after perpetrators with institutional backing, leaving behind survivors who were victimized by individuals without such deep pockets.

We asked Dos Santos to expand on her viewpoints.

Super Lawyers: How did you get into this area of practice? 

Samantha Dos Santos: Before I went to law school, I worked for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. I worked the hotline during night sessions, which often meant working with kids that finally got access to a computer at night. I would have conversations with survivors and provide resources to them. That’s how I became interested in helping young survivors. 

Once I started my practice, the Maryland Child Victims Act got a lot of attention, but the attention was on institutional defendants. That wasn’t something our firm was going to take on with the uncertainty of the litigation and appeals, but what we did decide to take on, with me spearheading the effort, was non-institutionalized cases.

SL: What do those cases tend to look like? 

SDS: We see a wide range of abusers, often family members or people within the community. I’ve also had cases where a survivor is under the impression they’re receiving some type of medical treatment from an unlicensed professional, or where a survivor and perpetrator began as a consensual relationship that turned abusive.

SL: In your op-ed, you brought up the frequency with which abusers and their representatives weaponize survivors’ decisions to report or not report the assault, which ignores the complexities of reporting. Can you talk about those complexities and where the legal system might be able to help?

SDS: In many sexual abuse cases, we see that the survivor is either unable or unwilling to contact authorities soon after. Some people don’t even confide in their closest friends and family members. I may very well be the first person that they tell. But the reality is, when people confront what’s happened to them with police officers, not all police officers are going to be equipped to have that conversation. That can re-victimize a survivor if they don’t feel believed, or if they’re blamed in some fashion. You want officers to have the best training, but oftentimes survivors are not having the best interactions with these individuals. 

Where we can help is to be a non-judgmental figure or give advice if they want it. Often in the first conversation you’re really just hearing them, and there has to be rapport generated before you can start talking about possible solutions or what the legal system has to offer. The legal system cannot fix what has happened to somebody, but we can offer some type of civil remedies. 

SL: What prompts someone to pursue legal action even if a lot of time has passed?

SDS: What I’ve seen in some of my cases is the lack of action from the criminal system. Often, the initial reporting goes to a medical provider or a police department. Then the frustration occurs when nothing is happening, the criminal investigation has been pending for a long time, and that’s when survivors may look into other options and come across a civil attorney. 

SL: What else do you think attorneys in Maryland or even elsewhere in the judiciary can do to stand up for victims? 

SDS: In addition to the training I received through RAINN, the four attorneys in my firm also attended a training on how to communicate with survivors. What is the proper terminology, how do you build rapport without asking all the questions up front? The rapport-building process is a trust-building process, and training is probably necessary for a lot of personal injury attorneys. Whether you take these cases or not, you’re probably having some type of contact with survivors, whether you know it or not. 

SL: How do you see these cases play out in court?

SDS: The vast majority of mine have settled in confidential mediation, even with private defendants. Oftentimes, I’ve filed suit, and they retain an attorney and negotiate with their personal funds by way of confidential mediation. 

SL: Do you find that those victims feel as though justice has been served?

SDS: I do. I’ve had clients be extremely happy with resolutions with confidential mediation. They don’t have to be out in a public forum sharing what’s happened to them, and they can get their medical expenses or therapy costs reimbursed. They still get that opportunity to be heard.

SL: On a national level, it seems as though we may be seeing a shift towards leniency as far as accusations of sexual misconduct. Do you think that will have a trickle-down effect?

SDS: I agree with you, there’s been a change in the federal landscape. But every case is so individualized, and all the interactions really are one-on-one. Every case is so unique and particular to what happened to that person.

SL: Since the passage of the Child Victims Act, are you seeing more people come forward in Maryland? 

SDS: I think there have been more people coming forward. But there have also more law firms advertising Child Victims Act cases. The act was found constitutional, but there are, and will continue to be additional challenges to the law. I do think it opened the door to more people coming forward, and that’s a good thing.