(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds like a trauma response. That kind of response is (sort of partially) genetic. The currently prevailing paradigm is that our brains have trauma response mechanisms but until trauma happens they are dormant. If a response is needed with any regularity it can become a coping mechanism and a response in situations that are not truly traumatic. The brain just thinks it might be traumatic. A kind of defense reaction.

I wouldn’t be surprised.  Large family with some weird power dynamics, nothing obviously abusive that I know of except in the case of my 7 year old mom who almost died of a burst appendix because her aunt taking care of her was dismissive of her pain and illness, said she was acting for attention (not mom at all, but I can see Grandma doing it).  Mom was pretty sure that happened because her aunt was jealous of her mom, the popular teacher.  Her aunt struggled badly with her weight and appearance was very important to all the sisters.  Pity is not kind when it’s not wanted.  Between that, a few other minor pecking order episodes I saw, and Grandma’s obsession with social status, my guess is that family had some big struggles before wealth came that left lasting effects.  There might have been mental illness with the mother, though I have always assumed it was dementia that landed her in a mental institution later in life.

Edited January 10 by Calm

[webbles]

The case against the church has been flagged as a "high profile case" in the court website so you can find all the files related to it at https://www.azcourts.gov/News-Info/CV-25-0213.  That has the petition to review, the response, and all of the amici so far.

An interesting thing I found as I read the petition and response, is that the plaintiffs are fine with marking one of the petitions (there are 3) as moot because the handbook that was used by the appeal court was from 2020 and the specific line the appeal court used didn't exist in the earlier handbook.

Also, the church is focusing very much on Church Autonomy doctrine and says that is why the appeals court is wrong.  And the plaintiffs are focusing very much on how this is a secular decision that has nothing to do with church autonomy and that the churches shouldn't hide behind the church autonomy doctrine.

Edited January 11 by webbles

[webbles]

The AZ Supreme Court has issued their ruling.  They affirmed the trial court and reversed the appeals court - https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/Opinion - CV-25-0213.pdf.  It was a unanimous ruling.  I believe that ends the Bisbee case against the church.  The case against the visiting teacher is still waiting for an opinion.

Interestingly, it overturns a previous ruling from an earlier appeals court (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court, 159 Ariz. 24) which had said that the penitent held the privilege solely.  The AZ Supreme Court ruled that in the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, the penitent controls the privilege.  But in the statute about mandatory reporting, the court says that the clergy holds the privilege.  So it is impossible to force clergy to reveal what was said in confidence, even if the penitent had relinquished the privilege.  I think that's a pretty substantial change.

The court basically ruled that the bishop holds the privilege and so you can't force him to testify unless there is some evidence of fraud or similar.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The AZ Supreme Court has issued their ruling.  They affirmed the trial court and reversed the appeals court - https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/Opinion - CV-25-0213.pdf.  It was a unanimous ruling.  I believe that ends the Bisbee case against the church.  The case against the visiting teacher is still waiting for an opinion.

Interestingly, it overturns a previous ruling from an earlier appeals court (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court, 159 Ariz. 24) which had said that the penitent held the privilege solely.  The AZ Supreme Court ruled that in the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, the penitent controls the privilege.  But in the statute about mandatory reporting, the court says that the clergy holds the privilege.  So it is impossible to force clergy to reveal what was said in confidence, even if the penitent had relinquished the privilege.  I think that's a pretty substantial change.

The court basically ruled that the bishop holds the privilege and so you can't force him to testify unless there is some evidence of fraud or similar.

Thank you for sharing this.  I just saw a news item about it.

For those not interested in reading the entire opinion, here's a Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of Arizona Supreme Court Opinion (CV-25-0213-PR) Filed July 30, 2026

Case: Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, and John Doe v. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al.

The Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether clergy members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a duty under Arizona’s mandatory child-abuse reporting statute (A.R.S. § 13-3620) to report sexual abuse that a congregation member (Paul Adams) disclosed to them in confidential settings.

Background

Paul Adams privately confessed to Bishop John Herrod (and later in a disciplinary council that included Bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy) that he had sexually abused one or more of his children. The bishops treated the disclosures as confidential confessions under Church doctrine and did not report them to civil authorities. Years later, after law enforcement independently discovered evidence of the abuse, the victims sued the Church and the bishops, alleging (among other claims) that the defendants violated the mandatory reporting statute.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the Church defendants, finding the clergy exemption applied. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding factual disputes about whether the communications were truly confidential and whether withholding the report was consistent with Church doctrine. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

Key Holdings

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Lopez, held:

1. First Amendment limits on judicial inquiry Courts and juries generally may not second-guess a clergy member’s determination that withholding a report is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts” of the clergy member’s religion. Doing so would require improper inquiry into religious doctrine (absent fraud or collusion for purely secular purposes).
2. Meaning of “confession” and “confidential communication”
   • “Confession” means a confidential acknowledgment or admission of a crime, sin, or fault to a clergy member for the purpose of absolution.
   • “Confidential communication” refers to private speech or correspondence made under circumstances indicating it is intended only for the recipient(s). Courts must give substantial deference to a religious institution’s own doctrinal understanding of these terms.
3. Who qualifies as “clergy” The First Amendment protects a religious institution’s right to define who is a “member of the clergy.” Factfinders may not second-guess that internal designation (again, absent fraud or collusion).

Disposition

The Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Church defendants and vacated the Court of Appeals’ contrary decision.

In short, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the clergy exemption in the state’s mandatory reporting law is protected by the First Amendment and that civil courts may not second-guess a religious organization’s application of its own doctrines regarding confidentiality of confessions, absent evidence of fraud or collusion.

Still a terrible story for the victim.  I cannot imagine what she has gone through.

This appears to end a long and sad legal dispute.  

Thanks,

-Smac