The West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant case involving allegations of child sexual abuse and the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. In the case of C.S. v. S. Grow, D. Fishel, C. Jensen, et al., the court addressed whether a lawsuit filed by C.S. against several Church leaders could be dismissed based on a prior arbitration agreement. The ruling has implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly concerning arbitration agreements in abuse cases.

The court's decision, issued on November 13, 2026, stems from a complex history of allegations against Christopher Michael Jensen, a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. C.S., the petitioner, claims that Church leaders failed to protect him and other minors from Jensen, who had a history of sexual abuse. The court's ruling affects not only C.S. but also the Church and its leaders, as it clarifies the scope and enforceability of arbitration agreements in cases involving serious allegations.

Background

The parties involved in this case include C.S., the petitioner, and several respondents who are leaders within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including Steven Grow, Donald Fishel, and Christopher and Sandralee Jensen. The dispute arose from allegations that Christopher Michael Jensen, who was previously convicted of sexual abuse, was allowed to babysit children despite Church leaders being aware of his abusive history.

The history of this case dates back to 2004 when Michael Jensen was charged with sexual abuse. C.S. was part of a previous lawsuit, Jane Doe-1 v. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where multiple families sought damages against the Church and its leaders. In 2019, after reaching the age of majority, C.S. entered into an arbitration agreement with the Church, intending to reassert claims related to the earlier allegations.

In 2021, C.S. filed a new lawsuit against the Church and the Church leaders, asserting claims similar to those in the earlier Jane Doe-1 case. The Church and the respondents filed motions to compel arbitration, arguing that the claims were covered by the 2019 arbitration agreement. The Circuit Court of Berkeley County dismissed C.S.'s lawsuit, leading to an appeal.

The Ruling

The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that while the claims in C.S.'s lawsuit were indeed within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the lower court had erred by dismissing the case outright. The court stated, "The circuit court exceeded the dictates of the West Virginia Revised Uniform Arbitration Act and addressed the merits of the petitioner’s claims when it outright dismissed the petitioner’s lawsuit." The ruling emphasized that the circuit court should have referred the dispute to arbitration instead of dismissing it.

Justice William R. Wooton, along with Justices H. L. Kirkpatrick and James W. Flanigan, concurred with the decision. The court affirmed the validity of the arbitration agreement but reversed the dismissal of C.S.'s claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. The ruling clarified that the circuit court's role was limited to determining the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and whether the claims fell within its scope.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving arbitration agreements, particularly in sensitive matters such as child sexual abuse. By affirming the enforceability of the arbitration agreement while reversing the dismissal of the claims, the court has set a precedent that could affect how similar cases are handled in West Virginia. It underscores the importance of allowing claims to be addressed in arbitration rather than dismissed outright, especially in cases involving serious allegations.

The decision also highlights the need for clarity in arbitration agreements and the responsibilities of parties involved in such agreements. It emphasizes that courts should not overstep their authority by addressing the merits of claims when an arbitration agreement is in place.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings, specifically to refer the dispute to arbitration as originally intended. Given the court's ruling, it is possible that C.S. may pursue his claims in arbitration against the Church and the Church leaders. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.