Background
Three of Paul and Leizza Adams’s children sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, two bishops, and related defendants after Paul sexually abused them. Around 2011, Paul told Bishop John Herrod about abuse of one child, including at a later meeting with Leizza present. When Bishop Robert Kim Mauzy succeeded Herrod, Herrod shared the information with him, and Mauzy convened a church disciplinary council at which Paul again disclosed abuse. Mauzy excommunicated Paul.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that the Church defendants negligently failed to comply with Arizona’s child-abuse reporting statute. The trial court granted summary judgment to those defendants, concluding that the disclosures fell within the statute’s clergy exemption. The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that factual disputes existed concerning privilege waiver and whether withholding a report complied with Church doctrine.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed summary judgment for the Church defendants. It held that Arizona’s clergy-penitent privilege does not determine a clergy member’s reporting duty under A.R.S. § 13-3620. The reporting statute instead contains its own clergy exemption for confidential communications or confessions received by clergy in the course of church discipline, when the clergy member determines withholding a report is reasonable and necessary within the religion’s concepts.
The court defined a “confession” as a confidential acknowledgment or admission of crime, sin, or fault to clergy for absolution, and a “confidential communication” as speech or correspondence treated as private and intended for those addressed. But the First Amendment requires substantial deference to a religious institution’s doctrinal understanding of those terms, its designation of clergy, and whether a clergy member acted within church discipline. Absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, a court or jury may not decide whether clergy followed their religion’s doctrine in withholding a report. On this record, the bishops’ receipt of Paul’s disclosures and their decision not to report were protected by the statutory exemption.
Key Takeaways
- Arizona’s reporting-statute clergy exemption is distinct from, and broader than, the ordinary clergy-penitent testimonial privilege.
- Courts generally must defer to a religious institution’s doctrine on who is clergy and whether communications are confidential religious communications or confessions.
- Factfinders cannot assess whether clergy complied with their own doctrine in withholding a report, absent fraud or collusion for a secular purpose.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes that civil claims based on an alleged failure to report child abuse cannot proceed by asking a jury to interpret church doctrine or determine whether clergy correctly applied it. The court also disavowed prior appellate reasoning to the extent it conflated the reporting statute’s clergy protections with the communicant-held clergy-penitent privilege.
The ruling does not create general immunity for religious institutions from secular law. Courts may still resolve disputes through neutral principles of law and may examine allegations of fraud or secular-purpose collusion.