Doe v. The Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 2-CA-CV 230293 (July 30, 2026) (VCJ Lopez) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/Opinion%20-%20CV-25-0213.pdf?ver=R13aYAM3jtcD4bk_lhSGSw%3d%3d

FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS FACTFINDERS (E.G. JURORS) FROM INQUIRING INTO A CLERGY MEMBER'S APPLICATION OF HIS RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE IN DETERMING CLERGY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT ABUSE OF MINOR WHERE FACTS OF ABUSE ARE LEARNED IN “CONFESSION” OR “CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION” ABSENT FRAUD OR COLLUSION AND WHERE CHURCH DOCTRINE PROVIDES THAT NON-CLERGY CHURCH MEMBERS MAY PARTICIPATE IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WHERE THEY ARE PRIVY TO “CONFESSIONS” AND “CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS” THE PRIVILEGE IS NOT WAIVED

Paul Adams and his wife Leizza were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints [Church]. Paul met privately with a bishop in the church and told the bishop he had sexually abused one of his and Leizza's children. Thereafter, the bishop arranged a meeting with Paul and Leizza where Paul again revealed the abuse. The bishop in question informed his replacement bishop of these communications resulting in the new bishop convening a formal disciplinary council where Paul again discussed the abuse with several members of the church, including the new bishop, all of whom served on the disciplinary council. The disciplinary council excommunicated Paul.

Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security discovered a video of Paul's abuse online resulting in the indictment of Paul and Leizza. Leizza pled guilty and was sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison. Paul committed suicide in jail after confessing his abuse to law enforcement. 

Plaintiffs, Doe, in this action, children of Paul's and Leizza, sued the Church, its President, the bishops and others in the Church alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy, principally arising out of the defendants' claimed obligation to timely report the abuse under A.R.S. § 13-3620 [Reporting Statute].  The Cochise County Superior Court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment finding that the communications in question were “confidential communications” or “confessions” under the statute and that not reporting the abuse was “reasonable and necessary” within the mandates of the Church's religion.

Plaintiffs appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed determining a jury could determine that the communications were not exempt under the Reporting Statute. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

The Reporting Statute provides: “Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect . . . shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information.”  However, the Reporting Statute also has a Clergy Exemption and a Clergy-Penitent Privilege:

A member of the clergy . . . who has received a confidential

communication or a confession in that person's role as a

member of the clergy . . . in the course of the discipline

enjoined by the church to which the member of

clergy . . . belongs may withhold reporting of the

communication or confession if the member of the

clergy . . . determines that it is reasonable and necessary

within the concepts of the religion [Clergy Privilege]. . . In any civil or

criminal litigation in which . . . child

abuse . . . is an issue, a member of the clergy . . . shall not,

without his consent, be examined as a witness concerning any

confession made to him in his role as a member of the

clergy . . . in the course of the discipline enjoined by the

church to which he belongs [Clergy-Penitent Privilege].

The Clergy Privilege is held by the clergy, and the Clergy-Penitent Privilege is held by the person confessing.  The former is broader than the latter in that it protects both “confessions” and “confidential communications.”  As such the Clergy Privilege protects clergy from disclosing “information deemed doctrinally confidential; it does not protect the penitent's privacy rights.”

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”  The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to create the “ecclesiastical abstention” doctrine which prohibits civil courts “ from inquiring into “matters concerning theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required for them.”

Here the Church's determination that the communications at issue here were “confidential communications” and “confessions” consistent with its Handbook cannot be rejected by a factfinder in a civil action. While the communications made in the disciplinary council which included non-clergy arguably created a waiver of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, the Clergy Privilege is much broader and protects the clergy here as “confidential communications” and “confessions” under the Church's policies and doctrine protects even non-clergy participating in disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Church doctrine, absent evidence of fraud or collusion.

In this case, however, there is no evidence that the Church

Defendants' factual allegations were procured by “fraud” or “collusion” for

the secular purpose of avoiding legal responsibilities, and any inquiry into

whether the Bishops adhered to Church doctrine is the antithesis of the

permissible narrow review—the application of “neutral principles of law

without inquiry into religious doctrine and without resolving a religious

controversy[.]'”