BishopAccountability.org
	Attorney: Revive Suit over Abuse in Mid- '70s By Charlie Frago Arkansas Democrat-Gazette June 19, 2009 http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/262329/ A 44-year-old Little Rock man should be allowed to revive a civil suit contending that he was abused more than three decades ago, his attorney argued before the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday. Paul Barre's suit against a former scoutmaster, the Boy Scouts of America and Our Lady of the Holy Souls Catholic Church was dismissed in 2007 by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Ellen Brantley because the three-year statute of limitations had run out. Barre said he didn't remember the abuse he blamed on Charles Emmett "Chick" Hoffman Jr. until 2003, after work with a therapist allowed him to recover the repressed memory of being fondled and receiving oral sex at age 12 by Hoffman at a Scout camp. In a deposition, Hoffman denied abusing Barre, but admitted molesting at least 10 other boys when he led Troop 27 at Holy Souls Church in the mid-1970s. Robert L. "Skip" Henry III of Little Rock, who represents Holy Souls, said the case was a "straightforward statute of limitations" matter and that under state law, Barre lost his right to sue Hoffman after he turned 21 in 1985. The state has set a high priority on protecting children, said Morgan "Chip" Welch of North Little Rock, Barre's lawyer, and should hold the Boy Scouts and church leaders accountable for not disclosing what they knew of Hoffman's actions. Brantley also ruled that repressed memory doesn't stop the clock on the statute of limitations for molestation, which Welch asked the court to consider reversing. When Special Justice Donis Hamilton of Paragould asked Welch if the Legislature would be a better venue to change statute-of-limitations provisions for abuse, Welch responded: "No, we're talking about children here." Justices Jim Gunter and Donald Corbin recused from hearing the case. Hamilton and Allen Roberts of Camden replaced them on the sevenjustice panel. Justice Robert Brown asked Henry whether the church and the Boy Scouts had a duty to inform at least Barre's parents if they knew about the abuse. Hoffman may have had that obligation, Henry said, but not others. "When you shift it to the church, when you shift it to the Scouts, there is no duty," Henry said. And since Barre has testified that he knew the abuse had occurred at the time and at some later date, then there was no way the church or Boy Scouts could have fraudulently concealed the abuse from him, which would have stopped the statute of limitations, Henry said. "If you hear a rumor, is the priest obligated to stand up and inform the congregation?" Henry said. "If you're trying to say the Catholic Church has a duty to speak about rumors, under Arkansas law they have no such duty." In a deposition, Hoffman characterized the molestation of his victims as "these things went on normally. I say 'these things' I mean, like, like an affair. Maybe that's not the right word for it." He said removing himself from proximity to young boys and "a good marriage" allowed him to "quit" abusing boys in the late 1970s, according to his deposition. Barre's deposition describes a lifetime of struggling with depression, lost jobs and a failed marriage, which he traced to the abuse he suffered. The Supreme Court usually issues opinions a few weeks after hearing oral arguments. At the Supreme Court, the case is 07-1305, Paul Barre v. Charles "Chick" Hoffman et al.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.