A Delaware court has denied a motion from Weih Steve Chang to amend his complaint against several members of the Catholic Church and others, claiming they were part of a conspiracy to cover up child abuse. The ruling, issued on July 29, 2026, affects Chang and his family, who allege they suffered abuse at the hands of a church member. The court's decision underscores the importance of filing claims within the statute of limitations.
Chang originally filed his complaint on April 25, 2024, alleging a "criminal collaboration between the Catholic Church and various state and local entities" to conceal widespread child abuse. His complaint named several defendants, including Bishop Francis Malooly and Father John Mink, among others affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington (CDOW). The allegations centered around the abuse of Chang's children by Carmelita Menton, a church member, between November 2012 and September 2013.
The case reached the Superior Court of Delaware after Chang's initial claims were dismissed in May 2025, with the court ruling that his claims exceeded the statute of limitations. Chang's knowledge of the alleged abuse and its concealment began in September 2013, but he did not file his complaint until April 2024, well beyond the three to five-year limits for such claims.
Following the dismissal, Chang attempted to amend his complaint to add the CDOW as a defendant and to include other individuals he believed were involved in the alleged cover-up. However, the court found that his proposed amendments were untimely and that the original complaint was already barred by the statute of limitations.
The court ruled, "The original complaint was found untimely...there were no facts that supported tolling." This meant that Chang's attempts to add new parties to the complaint were futile, as they would also be subject to the same limitations.
Judge Robert H. Robinson Jr. presided over the case and noted that Chang's claims against the new defendants would be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, as they too would be barred by the statute of limitations. The court also pointed out that Chang had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims against the deceased defendants or the unnamed church personnel.
The ruling has significant implications for Chang and his family, as it effectively dismisses all claims in the case. The court stated, "With this denial of the motion to amend, and this court’s previous May 2025 memorandum opinion dismissing certain defendants, this complaint, in its entirety, is hereby dismissed."
This decision highlights the importance of understanding legal time limits when filing claims, especially in sensitive cases involving allegations of abuse. It serves as a reminder that even in cases of serious allegations, procedural rules and deadlines must be adhered to in order to seek justice.
Going forward, Chang may consider appealing the court's decision, although the court's ruling on the statute of limitations presents significant hurdles. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions Chang may pursue.