ARIZONA — The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that clergy members are not required to report child abuse learned through religious confession or confidential communication. The unanimous decision overturned a lower court ruling and affirmed protections for confidential religious communications under the First Amendment and state law.

The case originated from allegations that the plaintiffs were sexually abused by their parents, Paul and Leizza Adams. Paul Adams admitted to abusing his children during a confession with a bishop in 2011. The abuse was subsequently discussed at a formal disciplinary hearing led by a separate bishop in 2012.

The bishops did not report the abuse to law enforcement or child welfare officials. The LDS church excommunicated Paul Adams in 2013. Paul and Leizza Adams were arrested in 2017 after a video of some of the abuse was discovered in New Zealand.

Leizza Adams received a 30-month sentence in 2018 after pleading no contest to two felony charges of child abuse. Paul Adams died by suicide in jail while awaiting trial.

The lawsuit was filed in 2020. A Cochise County judge dismissed the lawsuit in November 2023. A state appeals court reversed the dismissal and ruled in favor of the children before the state's highest court intervened. The Arizona Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling, reinstating the dismissal of the case against the religious institution and its leaders.

The opinion addressed the nature of the communications between the father and church leaders. "The Church deemed any communication (the father) made during the Council proceeding confidential under Church doctrine. Thus, we conclude that (the father's) alleged admissions to the Council were, at a minimum, 'confidential communications,' the opinion stated."

The court further noted that The fact that non-clergy members also may have heard the admissions would not undermine (the bishop's).. Ability to receive Paul's admissions as a confession or confidential communication in that role.""

John Lopez wrote, "Our decision 'does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws'. He added a caveat regarding the limits of these protections. John Lopez wrote, If a court finds a religious institution submitted evidence procured through 'fraud' or 'collusion' for secular purposes, it will lose the religion clauses' protection" in the constitution. The court found no evidence that the LDS church had submitted evidence procured through fraud or collusion for secular purposes.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement welcoming the ruling. The organization emphasized its stance on abuse while defending the legal outcome. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stated, "The abuse of a child or any person is a tragic betrayal of trust." It also stated, "The abuse at the center of this case was reprehensible, and the church has always condemned it." The statement expressed concern for those affected, noting, "The church is deeply concerned for these children and for all who have suffered abuse." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stated, "The church devotes significant resources to preventing abuse, helping victims, and encouraging reporting through safeguarding efforts around the world." It affirmed its ongoing support, stating, "The church has always been willing to help the victims in this case and that continues to be true." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day he stated, "Arizona law also recognizes the confidential nature of religious confession. [The] decision affirms that these religious protections are to be respected alongside society’s shared commitment to protect the vulnerable."

This ruling clarifies the legal obligations of clergy in Arizona when they learn of abuse through confidential religious channels. The decision reinforces the exemption in state law that allows clergy to refrain from reporting if they determine it is reasonable and necessary within their religious concepts. By citing the First Amendment, the court established that judicial bodies cannot evaluate the theological reasoning behind a clergy member's decision to maintain confidentiality. This sets a precedent for how similar claims involving religious doctrine and mandatory reporting laws will be handled in the state.

The case shows the tension between child protection mandates and religious freedom protections. While the court affirmed the confidentiality privilege, it left open the possibility of liability if fraud or collusion is involved in securing that privilege. The withdrawal of a similar proposal in Washington state in October, following legal action by the Catholic church, indicates broader national debates over these exemptions. A 2022 Associated Press investigation reported that a bishop called an internal church helpline for advice and was advised not to call police or child welfare officials, illustrating the operational context in which these legal questions arise.

Why It Matters

This unanimous ruling clarifies that Arizona clergy are not required to report child abuse disclosed during confidential religious communications, reinforcing state law exemptions based on First Amendment protections. The decision prevents courts from assessing religious doctrine to determine reporting obligations, establishing a precedent that shields religious institutions from liability in similar cases unless fraud or collusion is proven. By overturning the appeals court, the high court ensures that internal church disciplinary proceedings remain protected from secular legal scrutiny.