(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, helix said:

Then what's up with that byline? "A three-judge panel on Arizona’s court of appeals issued a draft decision siding with the plaintiffs, finding that clergy-pertinent privilege didn’t exempt a Mormon church leader from reporting evidence of child sexual abuse.""

That article is bad.  It links to the summary judgement dealing with the "bishop as a doctor" case.

The draft decision sided with the plaintiffs in regard to the children's deposition and other issues of facts.  If you watch the oral arguments starting at 15:50, the plaintiff's lawyer expresses appreciation for the draft decision because it recognizes the issues of facts but he also "implores the court to please give us a decision on the merits of waiver".  The memorandum decision that he talks about (and seems that he wants them to overturn it) is here.  It's the earlier appeal in this case where the appeals court ruled that an implied waiver requires the penitent to express what was actually in the confession.  if that memorandum decision stands, then there is no waiver of privilege.  And the way the lawyer speaks, it sounds like the draft decision didn't want to overturn that earlier decision.

[helix]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

The case against the church was given another summary judgment.  You can read it at here.  That was also appealed and had oral arguments a yesterday.  The draft decision there was split.  The plaintiffs were happy about how it would allow the trial to continue because something in the children's deposition overturns the summary judgement.  But the plaintiffs were not happy about how the confidential information would still be protected.  They asked the panel of judges to overturn the summary judgement in that regard as well.

Thank you for the documents. These are excellent and filled in some side questions I've had.

I'm still baffled how the Nov 2023 Arizona Supreme Court case fit into these other court cases. I thought this was all over and done. Why are there still lawsuits and more court/appeal processes?

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, helix said:

Thank you for the documents. These are excellent and filled in some side questions I've had.

I'm still baffled how the Nov 2023 Arizona Supreme Court case fit into these other court cases. I thought this was all over and done. Why are there still lawsuits and more court/appeal processes?

Which Arizona Supreme Court case are you referencing?  The only time that this case reached the Arizona Supreme Court was when the Church appealed a decision by the judge.  It went to the appeals court which ruled in favor of the church (this is the memorandum decision that said that the perpetrator didn't waive his privilege) and that was then appealed to the Supreme court which issued a ruling in April 2023 (I have yet to find a copy of it) that agreed with the memorandum.  But that was around 2 specific decisions in the case and was not the final outcome.

I think you might be referring to articles in November 2023 that described the summary judgement as a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court.  An example is https://www.kuer.org/race-religion-social-justice/2023-11-08/arizona-supreme-court-dismisses-child-sex-abuse-suit-against-the-lds-church.  That's just bad reporting again.  It was an Arizona Superior Court, not the Supreme court.  And it was a summary judgement (3 actually) and two of them are being appealed.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

The visiting teacher was the first of the cases dismissed and there has been no appeals for it.

I highly doubt there ever will be.  Doesn’t have any implication for the Church if she were found liable as she was a mandatory reporter through her work (Border Patrol) and she has no money.  Implicating the Church would require evidence of church dictated general suppression imo as visiting teaching/minstering no confidential privilege and being a woman, there is no priesthood label that can be attached to make it appear she has more authority in the Church than she did to confused jurors or the press (if being used to put pressure on the Church).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

It's the earlier appeal in this case where the appeals court ruled that an implied waiver requires the penitent to express what was actually in the confession. 

But wasn’t this done at the second meeting where he supposedly confess to the wife?  Do we know if the wife shared details on what was said to her, btw?

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, webbles said:

(I have yet to find a copy of it)

Not a copy obviously…

https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/12/23680418/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-latter-day-saint-priest-penitent-privilege-in-sex-abuse-case/

 

Quote

The Supreme Court made its ruling on April 7 but did not publicly release it, according tothe Associated Press. 

This said it was released the following Tuesday, April 11 2023

https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-child-sex-abuse-e02ae4470a5a53cbeb9aa146ff2762ac

Quote

The ruling was issued April 7 but not released to the public until Tuesday.

Wonder why it’s not listed here:

https://azmirror.com/tag/arizona-supreme-court/page/8/

Discussed here with a orofessor/child advocate (too bad, no new info)

https://www.kjzz.org/2023-04-27/content-1845335-advocate-says-arizonas-supreme-court-went-too-far-protecting-church-confessional

Edited February 27 by Calm

[helix]

38 minutes ago, webbles said:

An example is https://www.kuer.org/race-religion-social-justice/2023-11-08/arizona-supreme-court-dismisses-child-sex-abuse-suit-against-the-lds-church.  That's just bad reporting again.  It was an Arizona Superior Court, not the Supreme court.  And it was a summary judgement (3 actually) and two of them are being appealed.

Perfect. That was exactly the article that gave me my confusion.  Darn Associated Press making yet another error in their reporting in this case. It's been so frustrating trying to rely on them for info.

It seems the case continues to live on. I didn't realize there were that many opportunities to appeal in Arizona.

Edited February 27 by helix

[Calm]

So it’s not listed on the Court’s website anywhere that I can find.  Why would it be missing?

https://www.azcourts.gov/AZSupremeCourt.aspx

[helix]

I think I'm getting a better handle now. Webbles, please correct if I'm wrong here anywhere.

• Aug 2022: A county judge ruled that privilege was voided when the confessor shared videos online, so the 2010 confession and 2013 excommunication can be legal targets
• Dec 2022: Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the county judge's ruling.
• April 2023: Arizona Supreme Court didn't take the appeal from the Court of Appeals. That means the details of the 2010 confession or the 2013 excommunication are protected by priest-penitent privilege and this part of the case is done.
• Nov and December 2023: Superior Court gave summary judgments. The bishop/doctor argument lost. Also lost was the overall attempt to suggest privilege was removed at various points or the church should have known abuse was occurring for reasons outside of confession. These got appealed.
• Feb 2024: For the appeal of the the bishop/doctor theory, that has a draft opinion appearing that the bishop will win that. 
• Feb 2024: For the appeal that overall privilege was lost at various times and/or the church should have known outside of confession that abuse was occurring, that still seems to be plugging along with the church's lawyers disagreeing with a draft opinion here.

I spent so much time reading testimonies and trying to get the abuse timeline figured out. But I didn't bother to follow the legal case timelines. Whew this case is messy.

Answering my own gripe from earlier this evening, it seems this legal argument has not exhausted all of its appeal processes yet: "Does priest penitent privilege continue on after the 2010 confession due to events that occurred after the confession". It appears to me this argument is weak, based on the text of Arizona law. This argument was also ruled against in December 2023.
 

Edited February 27 by helix

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

Arizona Supreme Court didn't take the appeal from the Court of Appeals

Is that why it’s not listed on the ASC website?

Edited February 27 by Calm

[webbles]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

But wasn’t this done at the second meeting where he supposedly confess to the wife?  Do we know if the wife shared details on what was said to her, btw?

In the first appeal, this meeting with the bishop, wife, and perpetrator is not discussed.  I don't know why it wasn't discussed.  In the second appeal, the plaintiff's lawyer is pretty adamant that it is obviously a waiver.  So I don't know why they wouldn't have brought it up in the first appeal.  In the summary judgement, the trial judge barely mentioned it.  Just said it was covered under the privilege.  See the second to last paragraph on page 4 here.

in the second appeal, the plaintiff's lawyer mentions that in the wife's disposition, she said that she didn't think the conversation was confidential.  But I don't think there is any evidence she ever talked about what was said till her husband was arrested.

[webbles]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

So it’s not listed on the Court’s website anywhere that I can find.  Why would it be missing?

https://www.azcourts.gov/AZSupremeCourt.aspx

Yeah, I've looked as well.  My guess is that the AZ Supreme Court didn't actually give a ruling, but instead they just declined to take the appeal.  Which would mean that the appeals court ruling stands.  Based on the discussion in this latest appeal, the plaintiff's lawyer asks them to overturn the appeal decision, not the supreme court decision.  If the supreme court had given a decision, I don't think the lawyer would have asked that.

[webbles]

10 hours ago, helix said:

I think I'm getting a better handle now. Webbles, please correct if I'm wrong here anywhere.

• Aug 2022: A county judge ruled that privilege was voided when the confessor shared videos online, so the 2010 confession and 2013 excommunication can be legal targets
• Dec 2022: Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the county judge's ruling.
• April 2023: Arizona Supreme Court didn't take the appeal from the Court of Appeals. That means the details of the 2010 confession or the 2013 excommunication are protected by priest-penitent privilege and this part of the case is done.
• Nov and December 2023: Superior Court gave summary judgments. The bishop/doctor argument lost. Also lost was the overall attempt to suggest privilege was removed at various points or the church should have known abuse was occurring for reasons outside of confession. These got appealed.
• Feb 2024: For the appeal of the the bishop/doctor theory, that has a draft opinion appearing that the bishop will win that. 
• Feb 2024: For the appeal that overall privilege was lost at various times and/or the church should have known outside of confession that abuse was occurring, that still seems to be plugging along with the church's lawyers disagreeing with a draft opinion here.

I spent so much time reading testimonies and trying to get the abuse timeline figured out. But I didn't bother to follow the legal case timelines. Whew this case is messy.

Answering my own gripe from earlier this evening, it seems this legal argument has not exhausted all of its appeal processes yet: "Does priest penitent privilege continue on after the 2010 confession due to events that occurred after the confession". It appears to me this argument is weak, based on the text of Arizona law. This argument was also ruled against in December 2023.
 

This latest appeal isn't just on the privilege.  The plaintiff's believe there are differences of facts that should allow the case to actually go to trial.  A point they mentioned in the appeal is on whether the bishops should have had a "reasonable belief" based on evidence outside of the confession (porn, lubricants, children saying they are scared, etc).  The summary judgement said that wasn't enough dispute.  It sounds like the draft decision is saying there is a dispute, so it agrees with the plaintiffs on this point.

There are several options for this appeal.  One, the privilege stays intact but the facts are said to be in dispute so the case goes to jury to decide on whether the other information should have given the bishops a "reasonable belief".  Two, the privilege is waived by the jail call in 2017 and discovery is open but the bishop isn't liable initially (maybe more information is found that shows he learned outside of the confession).  Three, the privilege is waived in the 2010 couple meeting and discovery is open plus the bishop could now be liable.  Four, privilege is waived but the facts are not disputed so case ends.  Five, privilege is not waived and facts are not in dispute and case ends (unless an appeal to the supreme court).

And even if this case gets closed, the bishop/doctor case might continue.

 

[helix]

Thanks for your updates. This is why I come to this forum. I easily get more detailed and correct information here than anywhere else.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

A point they mentioned in the appeal is on whether the bishops should have had a "reasonable belief" based on evidence outside of the confession (porn, lubricants, children saying they are scared, etc).

Aside from the legal matters, I just want to point out again how frustrating this argument is at a personal level. 

The visiting teacher who befriended the abuser's wife, Leizza Adams went above and beyond the line of duty. She routinely went over to her home. She observed and befriended the children. She had training on child abuse. She suspected something was up. She did everything she knew using her religious and professional upbringing to try and gain the children's confidence and get them to talk. The kids would not crack. She tried to get that information out of Leizza, and Leizza would not crack. She observed when Leizza shredded an important journal and tried to dissuade her from it. She never could get the critical piece of evidence needed. Paul Adams knew how to keep his family locked down.

She was exactly what society needs to try and untangle and help such awful abuse cases. And what was her reward?  Her name was dragged through the national news as though she knew of the abuse but covered it up. The main AP reporter Rezendes gave an interview where he falsely said she destroyed that evidence. She endured years of legal threats from lawsuits. Some days I hate how much the legal and media world creates problems for innocent people who do their best to do good deeds. The optimistic outcome is that this legal case is drawing correct conclusions over time. But those years in between are sure painful for all involved. Especially those who did everything right and nothing wrong.

Back the appeal. The Nov/Dec 2024 summary judgments did point out that people are not liable if they do not build the correct sandcastle from their suspicions. Specifically, the plaintiffs provided no "admissible evidence that [bishops] Herrod or Mauzy were aware of the sexual abuse of the Plaintiffs other than by the confidential communications. Ms. Reynolds offers no firsthand testimony but rather provides information concerning rumors told her by individuals at Relief Society meetings, individuals who she is unwilling to name..." I just don't see this part of the appeal working, that rumors and guesswork without hard evidence is sufficient to allow for a lawsuit.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Based on the discussion in this latest appeal, the plaintiff's lawyer asks them to overturn the appeal decision, not the supreme court decision.  If the supreme court had given a decision, I don't think the lawyer would have asked that.

Good point.  They couldn’t overturn the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision, could they?  They are lower in the pecking order.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

The optimistic outcome is that this legal case is drawing correct conclusions over time. But those years in between are sure painful for all involved. Especially those who did everything right and nothing wrong.

Very, very well stated.  I was very frustrated on her behalf when this first came out.  Even if she only did half of what she described, it makes no sense that she would have kept her mouth shut if there was a reason to report it.

[webbles]

On 2/27/2025 at 12:33 PM, Calm said:

Good point.  They couldn’t overturn the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision, could they?  They are lower in the pecking order.

I just noticed that in AZ, the "memorandum decisions" do not create precedent.  They don't even have to publish them.  See Rule 111(c)(1) and Rule 111(a)(2) - https://casetext.com/rule/arizona-court-rules/arizona-rules-of-the-supreme-court/opinions/rule-111-publication-of-opinions-of-the-supreme-court-and-court-of-appeals-depublication

The appeals court had issued a memorandum decision so it is possible the Supreme Court issued their own memorandum decision.  But since it is a memorandum decision, it doesn't have to be published (which is why we can't find it) and it doesn't set precedent.  So this new appeals case could issue their own decision.

[webbles]

I was not aware that the case against the visiting teacher was appealed.  The appeals court has issued its opinion and reversed the trial court.  The trial court had ruled that since she didn't have a professional relationship with the kids, she was not required to report.  The appeals court ruled that the professional relationship was not needed.  They didn't rule she had a duty to report, only that the trial court needs to look into her interaction with the kids more to determine if she has a duty to report.  So her case continues.

The opinion can be read at https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CV20230272Opinion.pdf

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, webbles said:

I was not aware that the case against the visiting teacher was appealed.  The appeals court has issued its opinion and reversed the trial court.  The trial court had ruled that since she didn't have a professional relationship with the kids, she was not required to report.  The appeals court ruled that the professional relationship was not needed.  They didn't rule she had a duty to report, only that the trial court needs to look into her interaction with the kids more to determine if she has a duty to report.  So her case continues.

The opinion can be read at https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CV20230272Opinion.pdf

That is too bad.  If it’s ruled against her, I can see more people balking at being Primary and Youth teachers/advisers.

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The appeals court ruled that the professional relationship was not needed.

So does this mean (I couldn’t make it all the way through, concentration poor, I started drifting too many times) with everyone a mandatory reporter (or so it seems that is the idea), one can be held responsible for not spotting abuse even if one lacked significant training or maybe ability (there may be people who just don’t have space in their head to see it, it’s too unreal, distant to them; to see abuse, it would have to be something that couldn’t be explained another way)?

One of my grandmothers was a high school English teacher.  Put on shows and such with the kids and was apparently popular.  I highly doubt unless she was very different at school than she was at home if anyone would confide in her though or she would go to thinking ‘it’s abuse’ rather than rough housing or ill kept if the kids came to school messed up.  I can see her getting kids new clothes, helping them clean up, etc, being very involved, but my guess is she would think ‘they’re just poor and uneducated’ rather than abuse was in the home and if the family was middle class, she would assume the parents’ upbringing was poor.

I base this on how she talked about people and her active avoidance of dealing with anything negative while I was around her, including locking herself in her room for an hour or so when we kids were living with her for a few months and having a minor argument during what was supposed to be FHE.  When she came out, it was as if the fight and the following pounding on her door asking if she was okay (with no response so we thought we had given her a stroke) never happened. I actually have run into quite a few people who block out and forget unpleasantness, rewrite it into something they can handle.  I ask them later about something unpleasant that I know they experienced and it’s a completely different story for them from what I saw.  I don’t blame them as it seems to run in families, it seems a misguided coping skill taught in one’s youth.

I can see my grandmother in court being cross examined about abuse of one of her students by a parent.  Hopeless.

Edited March 24 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So does this mean (I couldn’t make it all the way through, concentration poor, I started drifting too many times) with everyone a mandatory reporter (or so it seems that is the idea), one can be held responsible for not spotting abuse even if one lacked significant training or maybe ability (there may be people who just don’t have space in their head to see it, it’s too unreal, distant to them; to see abuse, it would have to be something that couldn’t be explained another way)?

One of my grandmothers was a high school English teacher.  Put on shows and such with the kids and was apparently popular.  I highly doubt unless she was very different at school than she was at home if anyone would confide in her though or she would go to thinking ‘it’s abuse’ rather than rough housing or ill kept if the kids came to school messed up.  I can see her getting kids new clothes, helping them clean up, etc, being very involved, but my guess is she would think ‘they’re just poor and uneducated’ rather than abuse was in the home and if the family was middle class, she would assume the parents’ upbringing was poor.

I base this on how she talked about people and her active avoidance of dealing with anything negative while I was around her, including locking herself in her room for an hour or so when we kids were living with her for a few months and having a minor argument during what was supposed to be FHE.  When she came out, it was as if the fight and the following pounding on her door asking if she was okay (with no response so we thought we had given her a stroke) never happened. I actually have run into quite a few people who block out and forget unpleasantness, rewrite it into something they can handle.  I ask them later about something unpleasant that I know they experienced and it’s a completely different story for them from what I saw.  I don’t blame them as it seems to run in families, it seems a misguided coping skill taught in one’s youth.

I can see my grandmother in court being cross examined about abuse of one of her students by a parent.  Hopeless.

They didn't rule whether or not the visiting teacher had a responsibility to report.  They just ruled that a summary judgement was wrong in ruling for her because she didn't have a professional relationship.  The relevant paragraph on whether or not she has a responsibility is #28.

Quote

¶28 The question remains whether Warr, as a Sunday school teacher and babysitter for the Does, had a duty to report under § 13-3620(A)(5). See Avitia, 256 Ariz. 198, ¶ 20 (defendant owes duty if it is created by § 13-3620). And although the existence of a duty is a legal issue or the court, “sometimes certain antecedent facts must be considered in determining whether a duty exists–for instance, whether a statute applies to a circumstance to give rise to a duty.” Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., No. CV-24-0104-PR, ¶ 20, 2025 WL 779686 (Ariz. Mar. 12, 2025). As such, the question of whether Warr was ever responsible for the care of the Does, and therefore owed them a duty under the statute, depends on underlying factual questions regarding the nature and extent of their relationship. See Diggs v. Ariz. Cardiologists, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 198, ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (“[T]he existence of a duty may depend on preliminary questions that must be determined by a fact finder.”). The record before us is not sufficient to address that question, see Jones v. Respect the Will of the People, 254 Ariz. 73, ¶ 37 (App. 2022) (moving party bears initial burden of showing no genuine issues of material fact), and we therefore reverse the superior court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Warr and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The trial court needs to do more fact finding to determine if her relationship with the kids was enough to "owe them a duty under the statue".  If the trial court does find that she has the duty, then the trial court would also have to determine if she had a "reasonable belief" (this is where the church and the bishop/doctor are at).

Your grandmother would absolutely be a mandatory reporter in AZ.  The law explicitly names "school personnel"; see 13-3620(A)(6).  And if, in a school setting, she interacted with an abused child, she could be liable if she didn't report.  The trial would have to determine if she had a "reasonable belief" (per AZ law).