Arizona high court rules religions don't have to report child sex abuse to authorities

The religious institutions — and not a court — also get to decide who beyond actual members of the "clergy'' are exempt from reporting requirements, the justices concluded.

Most immediately, that means the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and two of its bishops do not have to stand trial for failing to tell authorities that a Bisbee man was sexually abusing his young children.

But the extensive opinion written by Justice John Lopez also creates a new binding precedent that will affect all future cases in which churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious groups get to claim immunity based solely on their own interpretation of what their faith requires and not what a jury might decide.

"We may not substitute our interpretation of Church doctrine for the Church's reading of its own doctrine,'' Lopez wrote.

This may not be the last word.

Tucson attorney Lynne Cadigan, who represented the children who were the victims of the unreported sexual abuse at the heart of this case, said she intends to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cadigan said she believes all seven Arizona justices — Thursday's decision was unanimous — got it wrong in saying civil courts have to defer to what churches say are their rules.

"This gives all religions absolute immunity to keep child abuse secret,'' she said. "This makes Arizona a very dangerous state for children.''

"We have it made it more dangerous, less safe, and give churches complete immunity to hide and conceal sex abuse," Cadigan said. 

Most immediately, unless overturned, the ruling means the children of Paul Adams who were molested — that fact has never been in dispute — cannot seek financial relief from the LDS church for not telling police or other authorities. The failure to report the abuse, the lawsuit says, resulted in Adams not only continuing to molest one daughter but starting to abuse another from infancy.

In a written statement, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spokesman Doug Andersen said the abuse in this case was "reprehensible, and the Church has always condemned it.'' He also said the church has always been willing to help the victims in this case.

But Andersen said Arizona law recognizes the confidential nature of religious confession.

"Today's decision affirms that these religious protections are to be respected alongside society's shared commitment to protect the vulnerable,'' he said.

Abuser's confession 

Adams confessed in 2011 to John Herrod, his bishop, that he had sexually abused one of his daughters.

Herrod subsequently asked Adams's wife, Leizza, to join them, and Adams repeated his confession. Herrod counseled them together and recommended that either Adams turn himself in or that Leizza report him to the authorities, but did not report Adams himself.

The incident then came to the attention of Robert Mauzy, who succeeded Herrod as bishop. That led to a disciplinary proceeding by the church that resulted in Adam's excommunications in 2013.

But here, too, there was no reporting to authorities.

Adams continued to rape that daughter for an additional seven years, into her adolescence, and also abused an infant sister. He also recorded the abuse on video and posted it online.

It all became public in 2017 when officials in New Zealand found a video online. Adams subsequently died by suicide in jail after his 2017 arrest.  

Liezza Adams, who learned of the abuse in the church meeting with their bishop, was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison after admitting she did not report that her children were being molested. She was released in 2020.

All that led to the lawsuit saying the church and the bishops caused harm by not reporting the confessed abuse of the one daughter which, in turn, led to abuse of two other children.

Arizona law cited 

Central to the case is an Arizona law that requires anyone who reasonably believes a minor has been the victim of abuse to "immediately report or cause reports to be made.''

But it also allows a clergy member who receives "a confession or confidential communication'' to refrain from reporting if that person "determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts'' of the religion.

Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy Dickerson tossed out the lawsuit, accepting arguments by lawyers for the church that it — and the bishops — were absolutely protected.

Last year, however, the Court of Appeals said it's not that simple.

Part of that was based on Paul Adams sharing his confession with not just the bishops but also his wife. Details also were shared during excommunications proceedings, with both clergy and non-clergy.

The appellate judges said the victims were entitled to have a court decide whether it really was "reasonable and necessary'' for church officials to withhold reporting the abuse.

The First Amendment 

But Lopez, writing for the unanimous Arizona Supreme Court, said that's not within the purview of  judges and juries to decide.

He said the basis for that goes all the way back to the First Amendment which says Congress may make no laws affecting the establishment of a religion or its free exercise, something he said gives them "an independence from secular control or manipulation.''

"Put simply, the Religion Clauses give religious institutions the power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine,'' Lopez wrote.

Cadigan said she is not disputing that churches can decide for themselves what constitutes a "confession.''

But she said the justices have glossed over the question of whether, in this case, these were "confidential communications'' — the trigger that decides whether clergy can keep them secret.

The evidence of that starts with Adams' confession to his wife, she said. Then there were lay members who, as part of the excommunication hearing, also heard from Adams.

And she noted Adams himself essentially told the world what he was doing by posting videos. Cadigan said more than 300 people were charged with crimes for watching those videos.

But, she said, the court is saying the church is free to decide what constitutes a confidential communication, free from having a judge or jury decide whether that privilege has been waived and that the church officials who knew had an obligation to report it.

Lopez maintains these are not questions for a court to decide.

"The First Amendment's constraint on courts against resolving matters involving interpretation of church discipline, doctrine, and internal procedures extends to what qualifies as a 'confession' or 'confidential communication' under established customers and rules,'' he wrote. Lopez said that "broad deference'' avoids the potential for government coercion.

Nor were the justices convinced by Cadigan's arguments that the facts in this case about who knew — beyond the bishops — shows that the church and its officials lost any privilege to refuse to disclose what they knew. She said a civil court should be entitled to make that decision.

Church doctrines

The justices, in finding no liability, relied heavily on the doctrines of the LDS church.

Lopez said those doctrines require those who have committed "serious sins'' to confess to bishops. They, in turn, counsel the congregant and aid in efforts to repent. The bishops can share that with other "authorized ecclesiastical leaders.''

According to church law, all of that is supposed to be kept confidential.

Lopez said church law also extends that confidentiality to all who take part in disciplinary councils.

As to the confession in front of Leizza, he said bishops often meet with husbands and wives together to counsel them about marriage and family problems, with doctrine saying "such meetings are just as confidential as meeting with someone alone.''

Finally, Lopez said, he and his colleagues have to accept the determination by the bishops that withholding Adams' confessions or confidential communications was "reasonable and necessary.''

"We must defer to the church's doctrine concerning 'confidential communications,''' he said.

Cadigan said the justices are giving too much leeway to letting religious institutions decide by what laws they are bound. She said there is a long history of civil courts trumping church law, citing, for example, the ban by states against plural marriages.