So, are they just talking about not being able to use the child abuse reporting law against the ones who KNEW about the abuse and did nothing, because the law was not in effect way back when the abuse occurred?
This does not mean that the perpetrator cannot be charged, does it?
The article was a tad confusing to me . . . . just because there was no law then regarding mandatory reporting of abuse should not mean that the one who did the abuse cannot be held accountable.
Am I making sense . . . .my brain is fried as it is way too hot and I've been doing the heavy duty kind of housework today. I thought living in the mountains was supposed to get you out of the heat.