Reviewed by Survivor Rights Center · Updated 2026-06-26
SB 832 would impose a higher evidentiary standard specifically on AB 218 revival claims. Source: California Legislature; CHILD USA 2026 reporting.
California's AB 218, enacted in 2019, was a landmark piece of legislation. It eliminated the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims and opened a three-year retroactive lookback window, allowing survivors to file cases that had previously been time-barred. Tens of thousands of survivors used that window to pursue civil accountability against individuals and institutions.
California Senate Bill 832 would apply specifically to AB 218 revived claims, those brought by survivors whose original deadline had passed and who used the lookback window to re-enter the civil system. The bill would require those survivors to present 'clear and convincing corroborating evidence' before their claims could proceed. That is a higher standard than the preponderance standard that ordinarily governs civil cases.
In civil law, the preponderance standard means a claim is more likely true than not, roughly a greater-than-fifty-percent threshold. 'Clear and convincing evidence' requires a substantially higher degree of certainty, closer to the standard used in some constitutional and quasi-criminal civil proceedings. Applied to childhood sexual abuse claims, which by their nature often lack third-party witnesses or contemporaneous documentation, the proposed standard could effectively block most revived cases.
Child protection organizations, survivor advocacy groups, and civil rights attorneys have voiced strong opposition to SB 832. Their core argument is straightforward: childhood sexual abuse almost never produces the kind of corroborating evidence the bill would require. Abuse typically happens in private, without witnesses. Contemporaneous documentation is rare. Physical evidence decays or was never preserved. Memory of childhood trauma is often fragmented.
The preponderance standard that civil law ordinarily applies was adopted precisely because civil cases are not criminal prosecutions, and because requiring a higher standard would make entire categories of genuine harm impossible to litigate. Applying a heightened standard specifically to AB 218 revived claims would target the most vulnerable category of survivors: those whose claims were already once foreclosed by expired deadlines and who gained access to the courts only through the lookback window.
Critics have also noted that the bill's timing and sponsorship raise questions about whether it represents a genuine policy concern or an effort by insurers and institutional defendants to limit their exposure to AB 218 claims. California's Assembly Speaker has assigned a group of legislators to review possible reforms to AB 218, and SB 832 is one proposal within that broader legislative conversation.
Understanding why 'clear and convincing evidence' is a significant hurdle in childhood sexual abuse cases requires understanding how abuse occurs and how survivors process and recall it. Childhood abuse typically takes place without witnesses, in private spaces where the perpetrator has controlled access. The perpetrator uses grooming techniques specifically designed to ensure secrecy. There are rarely contemporaneous written records, text messages, or other documents from the time of the abuse.
Survivors may remember the experience fragmentarily, may have repressed significant portions of it, and may not have disclosed it to anyone for years or decades. When they finally do come forward, they may have only their own account, the support of a therapist who treated them for trauma-related conditions, or the testimony of someone they told years after the fact. Under the preponderance standard, these forms of evidence can be sufficient if a factfinder finds the survivor's account more credible than not.
Under the 'clear and convincing' standard, the same evidence may be insufficient. The bill would effectively require survivors to have evidence beyond their own accounts, a requirement that is at odds with the nature of the harm and the conditions under which it typically occurs. For these reasons, advocates argue that the bill, if enacted, would transform the AB 218 window from a meaningful legal remedy into an effectively empty right.
SB 832 is a bill under consideration in the California Legislature as of June 2026. It has not been enacted into law. If you have an AB 218 claim in active litigation or are considering filing one, the current legal standard that applies is the ordinary civil preponderance standard, not the heightened standard SB 832 proposes.
Survivors who are monitoring California law should track the bill's progress through the legislature. Official information is available through the California Legislature's website at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Organizations including CHILD USA, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the National Center for Victims of Crime also track and report on relevant legislative developments.
If you have questions about how pending legislation may affect your specific claim, speaking with an attorney who handles AB 218 cases in California is the most accurate way to get information tailored to your situation. Changes in law during litigation can affect active cases, and attorneys representing survivors monitor legislative developments closely.
California's legislative process provides multiple opportunities for input and amendment before a bill becomes law. Here is what to track as SB 832 moves through the legislature.
No. SB 832 has not been enacted. The current standard for AB 218 claims is the ordinary civil preponderance standard. If SB 832 is enacted, an attorney can advise on how it might affect your specific situation.
The official text of SB 832 and all amendments are available through the California Legislature's official bill information website at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. This is the authoritative source for the bill's current language and status.
AB 218 is California's 2019 law that eliminated the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and opened a retroactive lookback window. SB 832 is a proposed modification that would add an evidentiary requirement specifically for AB 218 revival claims.
You can contact your California state representative to share your perspective on the bill. Survivor advocacy organizations including CHILD USA also track and sometimes coordinate public testimony opportunities at committee hearings. Official public comment through the legislative process is the appropriate channel.
This article is general educational information, not legal advice. Confirm specifics with a licensed attorney in your state — most consult for free. If you need support now, the RAINN hotline is 800-656-4673, 24/7.
Free and confidential. Tell us only what you’re comfortable sharing and we’ll connect you with the right support.
Someone will reach out within one business day. If you need help now, call RAINN at 800-656-4673.