2 HEHER JA HEHER JA: [1] Abused children have a right of recourse against their abusers. Until the nineteen-eighties the right was seldom invoked and, in South Africa, probably not at all. Major reasons were cultural or societal taboos (many abusers are close family members) and ignorance. Since then the boundaries of understanding of the psyche of survivors of child abuse have been pushed back by expert studies of the problem and the true nature and extent of the effects of such abuse have been become better appreciated. As survivors have become more informed about their condition and rights and have received support from public interest groups there has been an upsurge in claims, many by adults who initiated proceedings years after the actual incidents of abuse. This, in turn, has given rise to a spate of cases, particularly in the United States, in which defendants have invoked limitations statutes. A considerable body of judicial precedent has been built up in which the balance between the rights of victims and the protection of their assailants against stale claims has been discussed and resolved in the particular context of the common or statute law of the states concerned. See eg the comprehensive treatment of the subject in the American context by R G Donaldson ‘Running of Limitations against Action for Civil Damages for Sexual Abuse of Child’ 9 ALR 5th 321; and further, Carney v Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston 16 Mass LR 3; M.(K.) v M.(H.) 96 DLR (4th) 289 (SCC); Stubbings v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHHR 213; W v Attorney-General [1999] 2