McKinney v. Goins

• Docket Number: COA22-261
• Decision Date: 12 September 2023
• Citation: 892 S.E.2d 460
• Parties: Dustin Michael MCKINNEY, George Jeremy McKinney and James Robert Tate, Plaintiffs, v. Gary Scott GOINS and the Gaston County Board of Education, Defendants.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

892 S.E.2d 460

Dustin Michael MCKINNEY, George Jeremy McKinney and James Robert Tate, Plaintiffs, v. Gary Scott GOINS and the Gaston County Board of Education, Defendants.

No. COA22-261

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 12, 2023

Lanier Law Group, P.A., by Donald S. Higley, II, Robert O. Jenkins, and Lisa Lanier, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Attorney GeneralJoshua H. Stein, by Solicitor General Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General Nicholas S. Brod, Solicitor General Fellow Zachary W. Ezor, and Special Deputy Attorney GeneralOrlando L. Rodriguez, for Intervenor-Appellant State of North Carolina.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Elizabeth Lea Troutman, Robert J. King, III, Jill R. Wilson, and Lindsey S. Barber, for Defendant-Appellee Gaston County Board of Education.

No brief filed by Defendant-AppelleeGary Scott Goins.

Fox Rothschild LLP, by Troy D. Shelton, for Amici Curiae Student Victims of Sexual Abuse.

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, by Joshua D. Davey and Mary K. Grob, for Amicus Curiae Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina.

Wilder Pantazis Law Group, by Sam McGee, for Amicus CuriaeCHILD USA.

Tharrington Smith, L.L.P., by Deborah R. Stagner, for Amicus Curiae North Carolina School Boards Association.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, by Lorin J. Lapidus, G. Gray Wilson, Denise M. Gunter, and Martin M. Warf, and Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by Kevin G. Williams, for Amicus Curiae Young Men's Christian Association of Northwest North Carolina d/b/a Kernersville Family YMCA.

RIGGS, Judge.

PlaintiffsDustin Michael McKinney, George Jeremy McKinney, and James Robert Tate, along with Intervenor-Appellant State of North Carolina, appeal from an order entered by a divided three-judge panel in Wake County dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.The majority below dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint on the rationale that the Sexual Assault Fast reporting and Enforcement Act (the "SAFE Child Act")—which revived Plaintiffs’ civil claims for child sexual abuse after expiration of the statute of limitations—was facially unconstitutional as violating due process rights protected by the "Law of the Land" clause in Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.See2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 1231, 1235, ch. 245, sec. 4.2.(b)("Effective from January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021, this section revives any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under G.S. 1-52 as it existed immediately before the enactment of this act.");N.C. Const. art. I, § 19("No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.").

DefendantGaston County Board of Education(the "Board")—who, per the complaint in this case, failed to protect the children in its care from a sexually abusive employee over a period of years—asks us to elevate a purely procedural statute of limitations defense into an inviolable constitutional right to be free from any civil liability for whatever misdeeds would be provable at trial.But affording all statutes of limitation that exceptional status is nowhere required by the constitutional text, nor is it mandated by the precedents of our Supreme Court.Because adopting the Board's position would require us to strike down as unconstitutional a duly enacted statute of our General Assembly and disregard the narrowly crafted legislation designed to address a stunningly pressing problem affecting vulnerable children across the state, we decline to convert an affirmative defense into a free pass for those who engaged in and covered up atrocious child sexual abuse.After careful review, we reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A.Underlying Abuse of Plaintiffs

The allegations of the complaint, taken as true for purposes of review at the 12(b)(6) stage, establish the following:

Plaintiffs were all high school students and members of the East Gaston High School wrestling team at different times during the mid-1990s and early 2000s.All were coached by DefendantGary Scott Goins, who physically and sexually assaulted each of the boys during their pre-teen and/or teenage years.Defendant Goins desensitized his victims to sex, used foul language, and exposed them to vulgarity and pornography.He further engaged in acts of physical violence, psychological harm, and sexual abuse.On trips to tournaments and other team events, Defendant Goins precluded Plaintiffs from travelling or rooming with their parents so that he could sexually assault them without raising suspicion.Plaintiffs suffered lasting psychological harm—including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and/or substance abuse issues—as a result of Defendant Goins’ illegal acts.

The Board, Defendant Goins’ employer, received numerous complaints concerning his physical abuse of wrestlers under his tutelage.The Board, however, made no corrective action in response to these reports, electing instead to dismiss them after minimal investigation.Nor did the Board properly supervise Defendant Goins’ activities to protect Plaintiffs from his abuse, including while in school facilities, travelling on school vehicles, and during overnight trips sanctioned by the Board.

In 2014, Defendant Goins was convicted of the following offenses in connection with his sexual abuse of wrestlers on the East Gaston High School wrestling team: (1) two counts of statutory sexual offense; (2) six counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor; (3) four counts of taking indecent liberties with a student; (4) three counts of sexual activity with a student; and (5) two counts of crimes against nature.State v. Goins , 244 N.C. App. 499, 511, 781 S.E.2d 45, 54(2015).He was sentenced to a collective minimum term of 34.5 years for his crimes, and his conviction and sentences were upheld on appeal.Id.

B.Statute of Limitations and the SAFE Child Act

Under the statute of limitations then in effect, Plaintiffs had three years from their eighteenth birthdays to bring civil suits against Defendants for the torts arising out of their sexual abuse.SeeN.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-17(2007)(providing that persons under the age of eighteen may generally pursue claims "within the time limited in this Subchapter" upon reaching the age of majority);N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(2007)(establishing a three-year statute of limitations for assault, battery, and false imprisonment).None of Plaintiffs brought civil suits against Defendants for these torts within three years of their eighteenth birthdays, with the latest of the claims expiring in 2008.

The North Carolina General Assembly passed the SAFE Child Act unanimously on 31 October 2019, and it was signed by the Governor a week later.2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 1231, 1239, ch. 245, sec. 9(c).Among the many substantial statutory changes in the SAFE Child Act were revisions to the statute of limitations governing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants, including the following "Revival Window" provision: "Effective from January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021, this section revives any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under G.S. 1-52 as it existed immediately before the enactment of this act."Id. , 1235, ch. 245, sec. 4.2(b).This change by the legislature mirrored scientific developments and greater understanding by lawmakers from 2000 to the present ¹ that child sex abuse victims frequently delayed disclosure of their traumas well into adulthood and suffer lifelong impacts to their physical, mental, and behavioral health.SeeMelissa Hall & Joshua Hall, The Long-Term Effects of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Counseling Implications , AM. COUNSELING ASS'N VISTASONLINE , 2-5(2011), https://www.counseling.org/docs/disaster-and-trauma_sexual-abuse/long-termeffects-of-childhood-sexual-abuse.pdf;Ramona Alaggia et al., Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000-2016), 20(2) TRAUMA , VIOLENCE , & ABUSE 260, 276 (2019), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1524838017697312; CHILD USA, Delayed Disclosure: A Factsheet Based on Cutting-Edge Research on Child Sex Abuse , 4 (March 2020), https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Delayed-DisclosureFactsheet-2020.pdf; Ctrs. for Disease Control, Preventing Child Sexual Abuse , 1 (2021), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/can/CSA-Factsheet_508.pdf (collecting research from the late 1990s through the late 2010s).

C.Plaintiffs’ Suit and the Board's Facial Constitutional Challenge

Relying on the SAFE Child Act's Revival Window, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on 2 November 2020 in Gaston County Superior Court for: (1) assault/battery; (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) constructive fraud; (6) false imprisonment; and (7) punitive damages.²The Board filed an answer and counterclaim on 27 January 2021, specifically asserting that the complaint must be dismissed because the Revival Window "is facially unconstitutional" and the claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.The Board later filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on this same basis, as well as a motion to transfer the action to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Wake County.SeeN.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-267.1(a1)(2021)("[A]ny facial challenge to the validity of an act of the General Assembly shall be transferred pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 42(b)(4), to the Superior Court of Wake County and shall be heard and determined by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Wake County[.]").

Plaintiffs and the Board subsequently filed...