The Interlochen Report Exposes a Broken System: Why Michigan Survivors Still Have No Path to Civil Justice

The recent release of the Interlochen Center for the Arts Investigatory Report sent shockwaves across Michigan. Uncovering decades of sexual abuse, the report details systemic failures that allowed perpetrators to harm young artists without accountability.

As an attorney who represents survivors of institutional abuse, reading this report brings one central question to the forefront: How can these survivors receive justice under our current laws?

Unfortunately, as it stands, there is no justice that most of these survivors can obtain.

On the criminal front, many of the perpetrators are dead—and dead people aren’t prosecuted. On the civil side, Michigan has archaic laws that preclude civil justice for all of these survivors. In my practice, I see the human cost of these outdated laws every day: courageous individuals who finally step forward, only to find the courthouse doors barred by arbitrary legal deadlines.

A Troubling Pattern Across Michigan

Some of our Michigan legislators have tried time and time again to enact reforms to our Statute of Limitations. The initiative gets started every time we see these large institutional abuses come to light. Unfortunately, we have seen more of these abuses in Michigan than just about any other state:

• Michigan State University (Dr. Larry Nassar): Hundreds of survivors came forward detailing decades of abuse.
• University of Michigan (Dr. Robert Anderson): Over a thousand more joined seeking accountability.
• Vista Maria & Interlochen Academy: Recent survivors have bravely come forward exposing systemic harm.

Why Michigan has not been able to pass these reforms while many other states have is deeply troubling to me as a legal advocate.

The Stalled “Justice for Survivors” Reform Package

Many people tell me they thought this problem was fixed after the Larry Nassar scandal. I am often surprising clients and community members when I explain that is not the case. In 2018, the Legislature passed a narrow revival window that gave Nassar survivors a 90-day window to file their expired claims and extended the prospective statute of limitations to age 28. It did not impact other survivors whose claims had already expired, as the changes were not retrospective.

The latest effort to pass real reform stalled out as of May 2025. In May 2025, our Senate passed five bills—the Justice for Survivors Package—that would provide expansive, measured reforms for abuse survivors. Unfortunately, since those bills landed in the Michigan House, they have sat without any movement whatsoever. None has received a House committee vote or final House passage.

The Justice for Survivors Bills would, in part:

1. Expand the Statute of Limitations: A survivor would have the right to bring a lawsuit by the latest of 10 years after the abuse, the survivor’s 42nd birthday, or seven years after discovering both the injury and its causal relationship to the sexual abuse.
2. Create a 1-Year Look-Back Window: Allows any person subjected to criminal sexual conduct to bring a claim, regardless of when the abuse occurred or an otherwise expired limitations period.
3. Apply a Damage Cap for Revived Claims: For a claim already time-barred before the legislation took effect, a single claimant could not recover more than $1.5 million from a single defendant for damages arising from each incident or occurrence.

How Michigan’s Proposed Look-Back Window Compares to Other States

In recent years, 30 states and three U.S. territories have adopted some form of revival window or age-limit revival law. Here is how Michigan’s proposed reform stacks up:

Jurisdiction	Revival Model	General Scope	Comparison to Michigan SB 257
New York	2-year Child Victims Act window (extended due to COVID-19)	Expired childhood abuse claims against perpetrators & institutions	Longer than Michigan’s proposed 1 year; child-only
California	3-year window under AB 218 + targeted legislation	Childhood abuse claims; significant institutional exposure	Much longer window; expanded prospective filing age substantially
New Jersey	2-year revival window	Childhood abuse & adult sexual offenses against perpetrators & institutions	Broader than child-only models; closer to Michigan’s inclusion of adult survivors
North Carolina	2-year Safe Child Act window	Time-barred childhood abuse claims	Longer than Michigan; upheld as constitutional by state Supreme Court
Maryland	Permanent elimination of civil deadline + retroactive revival	Childhood abuse claims against perpetrators & institutions (with statutory caps)	More survivor-protective temporally, but contains damages caps
Vermont	Permanent elimination & retroactive revival	Childhood abuse	No closing date, unlike Michigan’s 1-year window
Maine	Permanent retroactive elimination enacted legislatively	Childhood abuse	Textually more expansive, but high court struck down retroactive revival under state constitution
Louisiana	Temporary window repeatedly extended	Childhood abuse claims	Longer practical filing period; upheld by state Supreme Court
Colorado	Revival legislation enacted	Childhood sexual misconduct	State Supreme Court invalidated retroactive revival under state constitution
Georgia	2-year window + later revival reform	Childhood abuse	State Supreme Court upheld retroactive application
Rhode Island	2-year window (July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2028)	Previously expired childhood abuse claims	Twice as long as Michigan’s proposed window, but child-focused

Addressing the Common Pushback

The most common policy argument I hear against expanding the Statute of Limitations is that it would be unfair to defendants because “the evidence is gone.” Based on my experience litigating complex civil cases, here is why that argument fails:

1. The Courts Are the Gatekeepers—Not the Legislature: Opening a window does not guarantee anyone recovers; it simply restores access to the courts. Nothing about a revival window changes the burden of proof, evidentiary rules, authentication requirements, hearsay rules, or expert testimony standards. The plaintiff must still prove the case. If evidence is insufficient due to the passage of time, Michigan judges already have the tools to dismiss those cases.
2. Stale Evidence Cuts Both Ways: Time destroys the survivor’s evidence too. Memories fade, corroborating witnesses die, and perpetrators pass away. Both sides face these challenges.
3. Institutions Possess the Records: Survivors often have only their testimony, while institutions retain decades of documentation. Schools, churches, camps, and youth organizations keep personnel files, complaints, board minutes, incident reports, and emails. The recent Interlochen investigation is a perfect example: decades later, investigators still uncovered dozens of survivors and identified dozens of alleged offenders. We saw the same with the University of Michigan and Dr. Robert Anderson. Evidence survives within these institutions.
4. History Proves These Cases Can Be Litigated Fairly: States like California, New York, and Louisiana have processed thousands of revived claims without a wave of appellate rulings finding that defendants were denied fair trials.
5. Institutions Often Concealed the Evidence: Many institutions failed to investigate, destroyed complaints, transferred offenders, and intimidated victims. An institution should not be permitted to argue that evidence is gone when its own choices ensured it was never preserved.
6. Criminal Cases Are Prosecuted Decades Later: Michigan prosecutes decades-old cold cases in criminal court every year. Courts trust civil juries to evaluate aged evidence just as they trust criminal juries.
7. Delayed Disclosure Is Established Science: Decades of psychological research show that trauma, shame, and fear delay reporting. The average age a survivor of childhood sexual abuse first discloses the abuse is 52 years old. Legislative reform responds to that scientific reality.
8. Justice Should Not Depend on Successful Delay: Allowing institutions to claim immunity simply because they successfully evaded accountability for 30 years creates the wrong incentive under our laws.

How We Can Help

If you or someone you care about was impacted by sexual abuse at a school, a university, hospital, or another institution, contact Lisa Esser-Weidenfeller today. Mrs. Esser-Weidenfeller remains committed to fighting for survivors of institutional sexual abuse and holding negligent organizations accountable.  Your consultation is free and confidential. We will fight for the justice you deserve.