Kenneth Voytac - Child Molesting Pedophile argues semantics before the Supreme Court

"Once they become victims of child sexual abuse," he said, "what is reasonable? There is no more reasonable."

In a case closely watched by advocates for child sex abuse victims, the state Supreme Court heard arguments today over whether a man can pursue a lawsuit filed 14 years after alleged abuse by his stepfather.

A state child sex abuse law enacted in 1992 allows victims to sue their abusers, but requires that legal action be taken within two years of the victims' "reasonable discovery" they have been harmed by the abuse.

The justices must weigh whether, as the victim claims, a recent event spurred his awareness that his depression, gender confusion and cross-dressing were allegedly caused by the sexual abuse years earlier.

Gregory Gianforcaro, a Phillipsburg lawyer who represents several victims of clergy sex abuse, said the case could have widespread implications for victims of childhood sex abuse who do not come forward until later in life.

"This is the most important case on childhood sex abuse ever in New Jersey," he said. "This is a landmark case."

Many accused clergy sex abusers in the scandal that rocked the Catholic Church in 2002 escaped prosecution because the criminal statute of limitations had expired. In the future, the case heard today could allow victims in similar circumstances to pursue a civil remedy in the courts when they fail to associate problems as adults to the earlier abuse until later in life.

A trial court judge had ruled the victim, identified only as "R.L.," became aware in September 1999 when at age 19 he had a flashback of the abuse while having sex with his girlfriend. He discussed the incident with his mother the next day and she told him there was "no way this hasn't affected you" and "we need to deal with it," but R.L tried to reassure her it was not a "big deal."

Last September, an appeals court reversed the trial judge, concluding the man did not become aware he had been harmed by the abuse until he and a coworker had a conversation about his sexual identity issues on Feb. 28, 2002. The coworker testified at the trial that the man "sat back, was very pensive and had a shocked look on his face, 'like a kind of lightbulb look.'"

The man filed his lawsuit on Feb. 13, 2004, which was within two years of the 2002 conversation with the coworker, but more than two years after the 1999 talk with his mother.

His lawyer, Victor Rotolo, said the man never associated his sexual identity crisis with the earlier abuse until that "lighbulb" moment in 2002 with the coworker.

"That triggered the avalanche of awareness," Rotolo said.

But Justice Barry T. Albin asked why the 1999 conversation with his mother shouldn't have made the man aware he had been harmed by the sexual abuse.

"What that shows is the mother gets it. It does not show the victim gets it," said R.L.'s other lawyer, said Marci Hamilton, who specializes in child sex abuse cases.

While denying the abuse occurred, William G. Johnson, who represented the man's stepfather, Kenneth Voytac, argued the trial judge was correct in ruling the two-year time clock for the lawsuit began in 1999, not 2002.

R.L. had claimed the abuse began in 1987 when he was 9 years old and lasted several years. Voytac and the man's mother later divorced.

During high school, he started cross-dressing and was treated for depression. He never mentioned the sexual abuse. Also in those years, he increasingly experienced gender confusion, used drugs and got in trouble with the law for stealing.

Mark Crawford, state director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, sat in on today's high court argument and wondered how the justices would clarify when sex abuse victims "reasonably" discover they have been harmed.

"Once they become victims of child sexual abuse," he said, "what is reasonable? There is no more reasonable."

As usual, the Supreme Court reserved decision.