Daughters ask court to allow abuse suit

A Kootenai County judge shouldn’t have dismissed a civil sexual abuse suit against a prominent local businessman, an attorney for the man’s adult daughters argued Thursday in front of the Idaho Supreme Court.

First District Judge John P. Luster last May dismissed a civil suit brought against James Deffenbaugh by his daughters, who accused their father of molesting them as children in the late 1970s.

Deffenbaugh is executive director of the Panhandle Area Council, a local economic development agency.

Attorney Monica Brennan asked the high court, which met in Coeur d’Alene, to hold off ruling on the appeal she filed on behalf of Deffenbaugh’s daughters. There could be additional changes to the law that would affect the case, she said.

The Idaho Legislature recently passed a law extending the statute of limitations on civil cases involving child abuse to five years after the abuse or five years after the discovery that the abuse caused injury or trauma to the victim.

The first suit under the new law was filed against the Boy Scouts in July by two men alleging past abuse by Boy Scout leaders in the late 1970s and early ‘80s.

Deffenbaugh’s adoptive daughters, Veronica Glaze and Viola Ralston, filed a civil suit against their father in October 2005. They alleged Deffenbaugh had molested them repeatedly as children.

Brennan on Thursday said the women were talking during a family reunion in 2003 and realized they had both been molested by their father.

The women and other family members confronted Deffenbaugh over the phone, Brennan said.

“He essentially admitted he had done these things,” she said.

Deffenbaugh’s attorneys urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal and require Brennan’s clients to pay the attorneys’ fees and cost of the appeal.

The statute of limitations under any Idaho law applicable to the case had run out, attorney Lisa Dickinson said.

“We believe this appeal is not well-grounded in existing law,” Dickinson said. “We believe it’s not well-grounded in fact.”

Attorney Mark Harris said even if there were changes to existing law, “it’s not law yet.”

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the appeal at a later date.