A.H. v. Church of God in Christ: Institutions Answer for the Abuse of Children in Their Care
Some cases are difficult to write about, and this is one of them. We write it anyway, because the decision the Supreme Court of Virginia issued last month matters enormously to survivors of childhood abuse and to every family that entrusts a child to a church, school, camp, or youth program. We will discuss it with the restraint the subject deserves.
The case
In A.H. v. Church of God in Christ, Inc., decided August 15, 2019 (opinion by Justice Kelsey), a young person brought civil claims arising from sexual abuse committed by a church deacon and youth leader. 297 Va. 604, 831 S.E.2d 460 (2019). The abuser himself was criminally convicted and is serving two life sentences. The civil suit asked a different question: what responsibility do the institutions bear — the churches that gave him his role, his access, and their trust?
The circuit court had dismissed the case at the earliest stage, sustaining demurrers — rulings that the complaint's allegations, even if true, stated no claim. The Supreme Court reversed that dismissal in substantial part.
What the Court held
The Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the churches assumed a duty to protect the child, and that they could be held liable for abuse occurring when the church took supervisory custody of her during church activities. In plain terms: when an institution takes charge of a child — at services, youth events, programs, and activities where parents have handed over supervision — it takes on a legal duty to use reasonable care to protect that child from foreseeable harm, including harm from the institution's own people.
The decision was not a total victory; the Court affirmed the dismissal of certain other counts, including the negligent hiring and retention claims as they had been pleaded. But the core of the case — institutional accountability for what happened to a child in the institution's care — was revived and returned to the trial court, where the allegations can finally be tested on evidence rather than dismissed on paper.
Why the procedural posture matters so much
It is worth pausing on what a demurrer ruling means for a survivor. A case dismissed on demurrer ends before any evidence is heard — before the institution produces a single file, before any official answers a single question under oath. For survivors, that kind of dismissal can feel like being disbelieved by the legal system itself. Reversing it means discovery: personnel records, internal communications, what the institution knew about the man it placed among its children and when it knew it. Cases of this kind are frequently won or settled on what that discovery reveals.
Why this matters
For decades, institutional defendants in Virginia have argued their way out of abuse cases at the demurrer stage — no duty, no custody, not our responsibility. A.H. rebalances that fight in at least three ways:
- Assumed duty is now a clearly viable theory. An institution that holds itself out as caring for children, and takes them into its programs, cannot later claim it owed them nothing.
- Custody during activities counts. The duty attaches when the institution is supervising the child — which is precisely when abusers within institutions have access.
- Pleading matters. The decision also shows that how claims are drafted determines which survive. Experienced counsel matters at the very first filing.
For survivors and families
If you or your child was abused by someone an institution placed in a position of trust, please know a few things:
- What happened was not your fault, and it was not only the abuser's doing. Institutions that enabled access can bear legal responsibility of their own.
- A criminal conviction is not the end of accountability. The criminal system punishes the individual; the civil system is how institutions are made to answer — and how survivors obtain resources for therapy, care, and rebuilding.
- These conversations are confidential and on your terms. No one is obligated to relive anything on a stranger's schedule. A consultation commits you to nothing; protective measures, including proceeding under initials as the plaintiff did in this very case, exist for a reason.
- Time limits exist, and they are complicated — particularly for abuse that happened years ago. It costs nothing to find out where you stand.
Families entrusting children to institutions today can take something from this decision as well. Ask the questions the law now underscores: how does this organization screen the adults it places with children, what supervision policies exist during activities, and what happens when a concern is raised? Institutions that take those duties seriously welcome the questions.
The law cannot restore what abuse takes from a child. What it can do — what this decision helps it do — is refuse to let the institutions that failed a child look away. That refusal, spoken by Virginia's highest court, is worth marking.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.
Update: In April 2021, the Supreme Court of Virginia extended this framework in Doe v. Baker, reviving negligent hiring, retention, and vicarious liability claims against a church for a retired pastor's abuse.