A Necessary Abomination - Legislation Against Abusive Parents in Conversion Therapy that Does Not Compel Speech

 

White Paper

Deferred Civil Liability for Conversion Therapy: A Survivor-Centered Framework with Expanded Standing and Objection-Based Liability

---

Executive Summary

Conversion therapy remains one of the most damaging practices inflicted upon LGBTQ+ youth in the United States. Despite increasing recognition of its harms, legal challenges to bans on conversion therapy—particularly those framed as restrictions on "compelled speech"—have placed protections at risk before the Supreme Court.

This white paper proposes a comprehensive survivor-centered solution that combines three strategic elements:

1. 30-year deferred civil statute of limitations beginning at age 18
2. Objection-based expanded liability that dramatically increases exposure for providers and parents once a minor expresses unwillingness
3. Broadened standing modeled on Texas SB 8, allowing third parties to enforce when survivors die before pursuing claims

By shifting enforcement from prospective bans to post-harm civil liability with private enforcement, this framework sidesteps First Amendment challenges while ensuring accountability and honoring survivor autonomy.

---

Background

The Problem

Conversion therapy has been condemned by every major medical and psychological association in the United States. Studies consistently show long-term harms including depression, suicidality, and PTSD. Tragically, many survivors do not live to adulthood—suicide rates among LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy are significantly elevated.

The Legal Challenge

Courts are divided on whether bans on conversion therapy constitute unconstitutional restrictions on speech by licensed professionals. The current Supreme Court is reviewing the issue, with conservative justices signaling skepticism about state authority to regulate professional speech.

Survivor Gap

Even where bans exist, survivors often lack legal recourse once they reach adulthood, as traditional statutes of limitations expire before they are prepared to confront their abusers. Worse, many survivors die before reaching majority, leaving no mechanism for accountability.

---

Policy Proposal

I. Deferred Civil Cause of Action

Core Framework:

• Survivors may bring suit against any licensed professional, institution, or parent/guardian who subjected them to conversion therapy
• The statute of limitations begins upon the survivor's 18th birthday and extends for 30 years
• Standing extends to third-party enforcers in cases of survivor death

II. The Objection Registry and Enhanced Liability

A. Objection Registration System

States shall establish a confidential Conversion Therapy Objection Registry allowing minors to register opposition to therapy:

• Voluntary registration: Any minor may file objection with state agency
• Confidential until age 18: Records sealed during minority
• Multiple registration methods: Online portal, written statement, verbal statement to mandatory reporter
• Automatic notification: Provider and parent receive notice that objection is registered
• Irrefutable evidence: Registry entry constitutes proof of objection for civil litigation

B. What Constitutes "Objection"

Objection includes any of the following:

• Verbal statement to provider, parent, or any third party expressing unwillingness
• Written statement in any form (text, social media, journal, letter)
• Registration in state Objection Registry
• Statement to mandatory reporter (teacher, counselor, clergy, medical provider)
• Behavioral indicators: refusal to attend requiring physical coercion, self-harm during/after sessions
• For minors age 14+: Lack of affirmative documented assent creates presumption of objection

C. Expanded Liability Post-Objection

Once objection is expressed or registered, liability expands dramatically:

For Licensed Providers: Strict Liability

• Any continuation after objection = automatic liability
• No defenses available: Not parental consent, religious belief, good faith, or professional judgment
• Enhanced damages: $50,000 per session after objection (vs. $25,000 baseline)
• Automatic punitive damages: No showing of willfulness required
• Treble damages: If provider continued after registry notification

For Parents: Near-Strict Liability

• Any compulsion, coercion, or requirement to continue = liability
• Single objection sufficient: No requirement for repeated protests
• Broad definition of compulsion: Physical force, threats, conditioning other privileges on attendance, emotional coercion
• Presumption of knowledge: If objection registered or made to third party, parent presumed to know
• No religious defense: Religious motivation does not shield liability
• No "best interest" defense: Parent's belief that therapy was beneficial is not a defense

III. Tiered Parental Liability Framework (Absent Objection)

When no objection was expressed, parental liability follows a tiered structure:

Tier 1: Highest Liability (Strongest Legal Ground)

• Active procurement with coercion involving violence, threats, or severe deprivation
• Procurement of unlicensed or fraudulent practitioners
• Continuation after child exhibits serious distress or self-harm ideation
• Use of therapy as punishment or retaliation

Tier 2: Knowing Harm Standard (Recommended Base)

Parents liable if they knowingly procured or compelled conversion therapy AND:

• Knew or reasonably should have known that major medical associations condemned the practice, OR
• Received explicit written warning from licensed medical provider, OR
• Continued despite observable signs of serious psychological distress

Definition of "reasonably should have known": After [effective date], universal medical consensus is considered public knowledge.

Tier 3: Defenses Available to Parents (Absent Objection)

• Reasonable reliance on licensed provider's advice (shifts liability to provider)
• Lack of knowledge where no warning was provided and therapy occurred before widespread public awareness
• Immediate cessation upon learning of harm or objection

IV. Expanded Standing: Third-Party Enforcement

A. Who May Sue

In addition to the survivor, the following parties have standing to bring civil action:

1. If survivor dies before age 18:

   • Any person who was aware of the survivor's objection
   • Any person who has evidence of survivor's registry entry
   • LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations
   • Child welfare organizations
   • Any person who can demonstrate knowledge of the conversion therapy

2. If survivor dies after age 18 but before pursuing claim:

   • Estate representatives
   • Surviving family members
   • Any person with evidence of objection or registry entry
   • Organizations as above

3. General third-party standing:

   • Any person may sue on behalf of a deceased minor who was on the Objection Registry
   • No requirement to show personal relationship to survivor
   • Standing exists if plaintiff can demonstrate therapy occurred and objection was registered

B. Recovery and Distribution

• If survivor is living: All damages go to survivor
• If survivor deceased with estate: 50% to estate, 50% to plaintiff bringing suit
• If survivor deceased without estate: 100% to plaintiff, minus administrative costs
• Attorney's fees: Always awarded to prevailing plaintiffs
• Multiple plaintiffs: First to file has priority; subsequent filings consolidated

C. Strategic Purpose

This expanded standing serves multiple functions:

• Accountability for deaths: Ensures providers/parents face consequences even when survivors die
• Deterrent effect: Eliminates "they died so we're safe" calculus
• Survivor voice amplification: Registry becomes permanent record of objection
• Constitutional durability: Mirrors Texas SB 8's successful private enforcement model

V. Damages Structure

Base Damages (No Objection):

• Minimum statutory damages: $25,000 per incident
• Punitive damages available upon showing of willful or reckless disregard
• Attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs

Enhanced Damages (Post-Objection):

• Minimum statutory damages: $50,000 per session after objection
• Automatic punitive damages (no additional showing required)
• Treble damages if therapy continued after registry notification
• No cap on total recovery
• Attorney's fees and costs

Institutional Damages:

• Institutions that sponsored or facilitated: Joint and several liability
• Per-participant damages if multiple minors subjected to therapy
• Enhanced damages for systematic programs

VI. Scope of Liability

Licensed Providers:

• Therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers
• Religious counselors if they hold any professional license
• Any person providing therapy for compensation
• Institutions employing or credentialing such providers

Institutions:

• Religious organizations operating conversion therapy programs
• Secular organizations (camps, boarding schools, treatment facilities)
• Joint and several liability with individual providers
• Liability extends to entities that referred or endorsed providers

Parents/Guardians:

• Tiered liability based on knowledge and objection (see Section III)
• Joint and several liability with providers in post-objection cases
• Individual liability for each parent who participated in decision

VII. Procedural Provisions

A. Burden of Proof

• Plaintiff must prove: (1) Conversion therapy occurred, (2) Plaintiff was a minor, (3) Defendant participated
• If objection alleged: Plaintiff must prove objection was expressed
  • Registry entry: Irrefutable proof
  • Survivor testimony: Creates rebuttable presumption
  • Third-party witness testimony: Creates rebuttable presumption
  • Defendant must disprove by clear and convincing evidence

B. Prohibited Defenses

Defendants may NOT raise the following as complete defenses:

• Parental consent or request
• Religious motivation or belief
• Good faith belief that therapy was beneficial
• Professional judgment (for post-objection cases)
• Lack of proven psychological harm
• Minor was "too young to understand" their objection
• Objection was deemed "manipulative" or "temporary"

C. Discovery Rules

• Therapist notes: Not privileged in civil suits by survivors
• Communications with parents: Discoverable
• Religious organization records: Discoverable despite ecclesiastical privilege claims
• Registry records: Automatically produced upon survivor request

D. Venue and Jurisdiction

• Suit may be brought where: therapy occurred, survivor resides, defendant resides, or institutional defendant is headquartered
• No removal to federal court
• State courts have exclusive jurisdiction

---

Legal Analysis

I. First Amendment

Speech Restrictions: Unlike prospective bans, this framework does not compel or restrict speech before it occurs. Liability attaches to conduct after the fact based on harm caused, not the content of ideas expressed.

Professional Speech Doctrine: Even under NIFLA v. Becerra's skepticism of professional speech regulation, courts have consistently upheld post-conduct civil liability for professional malpractice. This is liability for harmful conduct, not speech regulation.

Objection Changes the Analysis: Once a patient objects, continuing treatment is not "speech" in any meaningful sense—it is unwanted touching and assault. The First Amendment does not protect forcing therapy on unwilling patients.

II. Parental Rights

Baseline: Parents have broad discretion in child-rearing (Meyer, Pierce, Troxel), including medical decisions (Parham v. J.R.).

Established Limits:

• Prince v. Massachusetts: "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free... to make martyrs of their children."
• Courts regularly intervene when parental decisions constitute abuse
• No legitimate medical purpose distinguishes conversion therapy from abuse
• Medical consensus against the practice eliminates any "reasonable parent" defense

Objection Framework: When a minor objects, parental authority is substantially diminished:

• Mature minor doctrine recognizes adolescent autonomy
• Many states allow minors to consent to mental health treatment
• Forcing condemned treatment on objecting child fits established abuse definitions
• No compelling state interest in protecting parental authority to harm objecting children

III. Due Process

Retroactive Application:

• Modeled on child sexual abuse statute reforms upheld nationwide
• Stogner v. California: Civil statutes of limitations can be extended
• Deferred accrual until age 18 has strong precedent
• Notice provided by statute itself

Vagueness: Statute must carefully define "conversion therapy" to withstand challenges:

• "Any practice or treatment designed to change, suppress, or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression"
• Exclusions: General counseling, treatment for gender dysphoria that affirms identity, support for voluntary self-exploration

IV. Equal Protection

• Framed as child protection measure, not LGBTQ-specific legislation
• Neutral as to religion and orientation
• Targets harmful conduct, not beliefs or identity
• Rational basis review applies; easily satisfied by child welfare interest

V. Religious Freedom (RFRA)

State RFRA Claims:

• Compelling interest: Protecting children from documented psychological harm
• Narrowly tailored: Only applies to conduct causing harm, not religious belief
• Least restrictive means: Civil liability is less restrictive than criminal bans

Post-objection: Religious freedom does not extend to forcing practices on unwilling children. Employment Division v. Smith: Neutral laws of general applicability survive RFRA.

VI. Standing (Third-Party Enforcement)

Constitutional Standing: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife requires: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, (3) redressability.

Statutory Standing: Legislatures may expand standing beyond constitutional minimums. Texas SB 8 demonstrates that private enforcement with broad statutory standing survives facial challenges.

Analysis:

• Injury: Statute creates statutory injury from violation
• Causation: Defendant's conduct caused the harm
• Redressability: Damages remedy the statutory violation

Federal courts have been reluctant to enjoin state court proceedings with expansive standing (see Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson).

---

Strategic Advantages

1. Survivor-Centered Empowerment

• Individuals control whether and when to sue
• No state enforcement apparatus to attack
• Survivors choose their own path to justice

2. Long-Term Accountability

• 30-year window captures harm that emerges over time
• Aligns with reality of trauma processing
• Mirrors child sexual abuse statute reforms

3. Constitutional Shielding

• Avoids speech regulation framing by focusing on post-conduct liability
• Avoids state action vulnerability through private enforcement
• Objection framework creates clear harm distinct from parental rights doctrine
• Texas SB 8 template has proven durable against federal intervention

4. Death Does Not End Accountability

• Third-party standing ensures survivors who die are not forgotten
• Registry creates permanent record
• Eliminates incentive for providers/parents to "wait out" potential plaintiffs

5. Powerful Deterrent Effect

• Financial exposure for every session post-objection
• No safe harbor in parental consent
• Institutional liability spreads risk
• Uncertainty about future enforcement creates maximum deterrence

6. Objection Registry as Real-Time Protection

• Empowers minors immediately
• Creates documentary evidence automatically
• Notice to parents/providers may cause cessation
• Validates minor's experience even if suit never filed

---

Comparative Models

Texas SB 8 (2021)

Private right of action with broad standing:

• Survived facial challenges in federal court
• Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson: Federal courts could not enjoin state court proceedings
• Demonstrates durability of private enforcement model
• Blueprint for avoiding federal pre-enforcement review

Key lessons:

• Exclusive state court jurisdiction prevents federal removal
• No state enforcement = no state defendant to enjoin
• Broad standing makes enforcement unpredictable and deterrent

Child Sexual Abuse Statute Reforms

Nationwide trend toward extended limitations:

• 38 states now allow suits decades after abuse
• Courts consistently uphold deferred accrual to age 18
• Recognition that survivors cannot always act immediately
• Third-party standing for deceased survivors in several jurisdictions

Key lessons:

• Child protection rationale is compelling
• Long delays are acceptable when trauma is involved
• Retroactive application generally upheld

Mature Minor Doctrine

Growing recognition of adolescent autonomy:

• Mental health treatment consent laws in 20+ states
• Abortion access for minors (Bellotti v. Baird)
• Medical decision-making for older teenagers
• Courts increasingly skeptical of absolute parental authority

Key lessons:

• Minor's objection has legal weight
• Age 14+ is typical threshold for enhanced autonomy
• Mental health context increases minor's voice

Tobacco and Asbestos Litigation

Mass tort frameworks with:

• Statutory damages reducing proof burden
• Extended limitations periods
• Institutional liability
• No requirement to prove specific causation in individual cases

Key lessons:

• Delayed-harm cases need special procedural rules
• Institutional defendants can be held liable for systematic conduct
• Statutory damages overcome proof problems

---

Implementation Considerations

Legislative Framing

Primary Messaging:

• Child welfare and survivor justice, not culture war
• Emphasis on medical consensus and documented harm
• Comparison to child sexual abuse protections
• Highlighting suicide and mental health crisis

Coalition Building:

• Survivor organizations (primary voices)
• Medical and psychological associations
• Child welfare advocates
• Civil rights organizations
• Bipartisan appeal through child protection frame

Avoid:

• Explicit LGBTQ framing (though obviously the beneficiaries)
• Anti-religion rhetoric
• Partisan talking points
• Federal constitutional arguments (keep it state-focused)

Drafting Precision

Critical definitions needed:

• "Conversion therapy" (with specific exclusions for legitimate counseling)
• "Objection" (broad but not unlimited)
• "Compel" (for parental liability)
• "Licensed provider" (capture all relevant professionals)
• "Institution" (religious and secular)

Severability clause: Essential given constitutional challenges. Each provision should be severable.

Findings section:

• Document medical consensus with citations
• Evidence of harm from peer-reviewed studies
• History of the practice and its condemnation
• Legislative intent to protect children

Judicial Anticipation

Conservative court concerns:

• Parental rights (addressed by objection framework and knowing harm standard)
• Religious freedom (addressed by conduct-not-belief framing)
• Professional speech (addressed by post-harm liability model)
• Standing (addressed by Texas SB 8 precedent)

Drafting to survive:

• Narrow tailoring language
• Multiple tiers of liability (if one falls, others survive)
• Explicit findings supporting compelling interest
• Clear limiting principles

Registry Implementation

Administrative requirements:

• Secure online portal
• Paper filing option
• Multiple language support
• Confidentiality protections
• Automatic notification system to parents/providers
• Record preservation (permanent)

Training for mandatory reporters:

• How to help minors file objections
• Confidentiality obligations
• No requirement to convince parent to stop

Funding:

• Filing fees from defendants in successful suits
• State appropriation
• Private foundation grants

---

Anticipated Opposition and Responses

"This violates parental rights"

Response: Parental rights have always had limits where child abuse is concerned. This framework respects parental authority in legitimate medical decisions while protecting children from practices condemned by every major medical association. Notably, once a child objects, continuing forced therapy is not a protected parental decision—it's abuse.

"This targets religious beliefs"

Response: This law targets conduct, not belief. Religious individuals remain free to believe what they wish and to teach their children their values. They are not free to subject unwilling children to practices that cause documented psychological harm. The law applies equally regardless of religious motivation.

"Therapists should be free to offer any form of counseling"

Response: Professional licensing has always come with standards of care. Professionals who violate those standards face liability. Once a patient—even a minor patient—objects to treatment, continuing that treatment crosses the line from speech to assault. No professional has a First Amendment right to treat unwilling patients.

"Children are too young to make this decision"

Response: We're not asking children to make medical decisions. We're recognizing that when a child says "I don't want this," continuing to force it on them is harmful. The law already recognizes adolescent autonomy in mental health contexts. This simply extends that recognition to protect children from forced conversion therapy.

"This is just like Texas's abortion law—it's a gimmick"

Response: The legal mechanism is similar, but the substance is opposite. Texas SB 8 restricts constitutional rights; this framework protects children from abuse. If the mechanism works to enforce state law, it can work for good purposes too. We're using all available legal tools to protect vulnerable children.

"The statute of limitations is too long"

Response: Child sexual abuse survivors can sue decades after reaching adulthood in most states. Courts recognize that trauma survivors cannot always act immediately. Conversion therapy causes similar long-term psychological harm. The 30-year window is consistent with other child protection statutes and reflects the reality of how survivors process trauma.

---

Model Legislation: Key Provisions

Section 1: Short Title

"Survivor Justice and Child Protection Act"

Section 2: Findings

[Detailed findings establishing medical consensus, documented harms, suicide rates, need for extended limitations period]

Section 3: Definitions

[Precise definitions of conversion therapy, objection, licensed provider, institution, parent/guardian, compel]

Section 4: Civil Cause of Action

[30-year statute of limitations from age 18, who may be sued, joint and several liability]

Section 5: Objection Registry

[Establishment of registry, confidentiality rules, notification procedures, evidentiary effect]

Section 6: Enhanced Liability for Post-Objection Conduct

[Strict liability for providers, near-strict liability for parents, enhanced damages, prohibited defenses]

Section 7: Tiered Parental Liability

[Three tiers based on knowledge and conduct, defenses available, knowing harm standard]

Section 8: Expanded Standing

[Third-party enforcement, who may sue, distribution of damages, priority rules]

Section 9: Damages

[Base damages, enhanced damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, no caps]

Section 10: Procedural Rules

[Burden of proof, prohibited defenses, discovery rules, venue, exclusive state jurisdiction]

Section 11: Severability

[Standard severability clause ensuring survival of remaining provisions]

Section 12: Effective Date and Applicability

[Immediate effectiveness, applies to conduct occurring after date of enactment, registry operational within 90 days]

---

Conclusion

Conversion therapy inflicts profound harm on vulnerable children, yet legal protections remain vulnerable to constitutional challenge. This comprehensive framework addresses that vulnerability through three strategic innovations:

1. Deferred civil liability that avoids the speech-restriction framing that endangers current bans
2. Objection-based expanded liability that dramatically increases accountability once a minor expresses unwillingness
3. Third-party enforcement with broad standing ensuring that even survivors who die before adulthood are not forgotten

By combining the survivor empowerment of extended statutes of limitations, the constitutional durability of Texas SB 8's private enforcement model, and the strategic power of objection-based liability expansion, this framework provides maximum protection while minimizing legal vulnerability.

The Objection Registry serves as both a real-time protection mechanism and a permanent record ensuring accountability. The tiered parental liability structure respects legitimate parental authority while clearly defining its limits. And the expanded standing provisions ensure that death does not end the pursuit of justice.

This is not merely a legal strategy—it is a recognition that survivors deserve justice on their own terms, that children's voices matter, and that those who inflict documented harm on vulnerable minors must be held accountable, no matter how much time has passed and no matter whether the survivor lives to pursue their claim.

The framework aligns with longstanding child protection precedents, withstands First Amendment challenges better than outright bans, and honors the autonomy and dignity of survivors. It is comprehensive, strategic, and—most importantly—centered on the needs and voices of those who have suffered.

---

Next Steps for Advocates

1. Build survivor coalition - Center survivor voices in advocacy
2. Engage medical associations - Secure amicus support for litigation
3. Identify champion legislators - Both parties, child welfare focus
4. Draft model bill - Adapt this framework to state-specific context
5. Prepare for litigation - Anticipate challenges, develop record
6. Implement registry infrastructure - Technical and administrative planning
7. Train mandatory reporters - Ensure awareness of objection mechanisms
8. Coordinate multi-state strategy - Simultaneous introduction in multiple jurisdictions

The time for action is now. Children are being harmed today. Survivors are waiting for justice. This framework provides a path forward.