Arizona’s Clergy Reporting Exception in the Wake of Doe

By Rose Sagarin.

Arizona’s Mandatory Reporting Law

Arizona law requires a broad range of individuals to report suspected child abuse. That obligation becomes more complicated when the person who learns of the abuse is a clergy member who believes religious doctrine requires the communication to remain confidential.

A.R.S. § 13-3620 addresses both interests. The statute imposes an immediate reporting duty on specified individuals who reasonably believe that a minor is or has been the victim of “physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect.” Covered individuals include certain healthcare professionals, peace officers, Department of Child Safety (DCS) personnel, clergy members, parents, and others responsible for the care or treatment of children. Reports generally must be made to law enforcement, DCS, or, when applicable, a tribal law enforcement or social services agency.

For clergy members, however, § 13-3620(A) recognizes a limited exception. A clergy member who receives a confession or confidential communication in that person’s role as clergy and in the course of church discipline may withhold the communication if the clergy member determines that doing so is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.” The exception does not extend to the clergy member’s personal observations of the minor.

In July 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court examined the scope of this exception in Doe v. The Corporation.

Background in Doe

Around 2011, Paul Adams privately disclosed to Bishop John Herrod that he had sexually abused one of his children. Paul was a father of six and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Herrod later met with Paul and Paul’s wife, Leizza, during which Paul again admitted to the abuse. In 2012, Herrod informed incoming Bishop Robert Mauzy of Paul’s disclosures. Mauzy convened a formal Church disciplinary council, where Paul again admitted to the abuse and was ultimately excommunicated.

Both bishops maintained that their knowledge of Paul’s abuse was limited to his admissions during the private meetings and disciplinary council. According to Church doctrine, as described in the Court’s opinion and reflected in the Church’s General Handbook, bishops have a religious duty to preserve the confidentiality of information disclosed during confessions and interviews. The bishops did not report Paul’s admissions to law enforcement or DCS.

In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security discovered a video of Paul’s abuse online. Paul and Leizza were indicted on charges stemming from the abuse. While Leizza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, Paul confessed to law enforcement but died by suicide while in jail before trial.

When three of Paul’s children learned of his prior disclosures to members of the Church, they brought claims against the Church, the bishops, and related parties. Among the claims were negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. The claims arose in part from the Church defendants’ alleged failure to comply with A.R.S. § 13-3620.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the Church defendants, finding that Paul’s disclosures qualified as confidential communications or confessions received by the bishops as clergy and that the bishops had determined withholding them was “reasonable and necessary” under Church doctrine. The court reasoned that it was not the role of a judge or jury to decide whether clergy correctly interpreted the requirements of their religion.

The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The court focused much of its analysis on Arizona’s clergy-penitent privilege and concluded that factual questions remained concerning waiver and whether the bishops were required to report. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify § 13-3620 and the First Amendment limits on judicial inquiry into clergy members’ doctrinal decisions.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s Decision in Doe

In July 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Doe. Vice Chief Justice Lopez distinguished the Clergy Exemption in § 13-3620(A) from Arizona’s testimonial clergy privileges. Those provisions address whether clergy may be compelled to testify about certain religious communications, while the Clergy Exemption addresses whether clergy had a statutory duty to report the communication in the first place. The Court concluded that the court of appeals erred by treating the clergy-penitent privilege as controlling the bishops’ reporting duties.

Next, the Court considered whether a judge or jury could determine that the bishops incorrectly applied Church doctrine when deciding not to report. It held that the First Amendment generally prohibits such an inquiry “absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes.” Courts also must give “substantial deference” to a religious institution’s doctrinal understanding of “confession” and “confidential communication.”

Ultimately, the Court concluded that Paul’s statements were confidential religious communications or confessions. His disclosures were made to the bishops in their roles as clergy, either during private meetings or in Church disciplinary proceedings. The presence of Paul’s wife and other members of the council did not defeat confidentiality because the Church’s doctrine treated those communications as confidential. The Court therefore affirmed summary judgment for the Church defendants and vacated the court of appeals’ decision.

The Motion for Reconsideration

On August 12, 2026, the Doe children filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to revisit its decision. In the motion, the Does argued that the Court overlooked factual disputes concerning whether Paul’s disclosures were actually confidential and whether confidentiality was later waived. The Does pointed to Leizza’s presence during one of Paul’s disclosures, what they described as Herrod’s later disclosure of Paul’s confession to a Homeland Security agent, and Leizza’s participation in the Church disciplinary proceedings. They emphasized the number of Church members who allegedly learned of the abuse.

The Does also challenged the Court’s interpretation of § 13-3620(A), contending that courts should assess confidentiality using objective and secular standards. According to the motion, the Court’s approach gives religious institutions too much control over the application of the state reporting statute. On August 21, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, leaving its July decision in place.

Child-Abuse Reporting and the First Amendment

The Court framed the dispute as one involving statutory interpretation and federal constitutional principles, rather than the merits of the Doe children’s claims or broader public policy. The First Amendment is relevant to Doe because applying § 13-3620(A) can require a court to answer questions that depend on religious doctrine. The Court held that civil courts may apply the statute’s secular requirements but cannot generally second-guess clergy on questions that turn on religious doctrine. In practice, the decision leaves Arizona’s mandatory reporting law in place while limiting courts’ ability to independently resolve doctrinal questions that arise when applying the clergy exception, although courts may still decide issues that can be resolved through neutral principles of law.