PHOENIX (AZ)
KTVK/KPHO [Phoenix, AZ]
July 30, 2026
By Mitchell Koch
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that it is up to the church, not a judge or jury, to decide what counts as a confidential communication, shielding clergy from the state’s mandatory child abuse reporting requirements.
The unanimous court opinion was announced Thursday, following a case of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints admitting to child abuse during a confession with a bishop, a second time during a confession with the bishop and his wife, and a third time during a disciplinary council.
The justices ruled that courts cannot second-guess how the church interprets its doctrine when describing what constitutes confession and confidential communications.
Arizona law already protects clergy members from reporting child abuse learned through a confession or confidential communication. But if a clergy member learns about abuses outside of those incidents, they must tell law enforcement or other government authorities.
What started this?
Justices began arguing this case following a 2020 civil lawsuit against The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bishops of the Bisbee Ward of the Church, John Herrod and Robert “Kim” Mauzy, their spouses and other defendants. The lawsuit lists three plaintiffs — Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II and John Doe — who are children of church member spouses Paul and Leizza Adams.
The plaintiffs say the church violated Arizona’s mandatory reporting law when clergy members failed to report Paul’s abuse of one of them as a child.
Paul told Bishop Herrod about his abuse of one of the children during a November 2011 confession and again told Bishop Herrod and Leizza in another confession. He then disclosed the abuse a third time during a confidential disciplinary council proceeding with Bishop Mauzy and other members.
After the disciplinary proceeding, Bishop Mauzy excommunicated Paul from the church in 2013.
In 2017, a grand jury indicted Paul and Leizza Adams on charges related to Paul’s abuse of the children. Leizza pleaded guilty, and she was sentenced to two years and six months in prison. Paul confessed to the abuse to law enforcement, but he died by suicide in jail before a trial.
In November 2023, the Cochise County Superior Court dismissed the children’s lawsuit, finding that the bishops were not required to report Paul’s abuse to law enforcement because they learned about it through confidential communications.
A court of appeals then reversed the Cochise County court opinion, reinstating the children’s lawsuit against the church and other defendants. The appeals court ruled the church may have been required to report the abuse because a judge or jury could find that Paul and the bishops waived clergy-penitent privilege when the abuse was revealed at the disciplinary hearing to Leizza and other council members, who may not have been clergy members.
Arizona’s Supreme Court said the court of appeals’ decision would allow a judge or jury to decide if church defendants are correct in determining what is reasonable and necessary according to the church’s own religious doctrine.
The state court’s opinion affirms the Cochise County ruling and reverses the court of appeals’ decision. Justices found that the church defendants did not have to report Paul’s abuse because bishops learned about it through confession, which is confidential communication, according to the church’s beliefs.
History of protected religious speech
The Arizona Supreme Court also said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion means a court cannot determine matters of religious doctrine. The First Amendment has been cited in limiting the ability of judges or juries to question a clergy member’s interpretation of their own religious doctrine.
Due to the religious importance of confidential confessions, the state court found Arizona’s mandatory reporting law shields church officials from reporting incidents of sexual abuse only if they are known through a religious confession or other confidential communications.
The Supreme Court further explained that in rare circumstances of fraud or collusion to avoid legal responsibilities, a court may look more deeply into religious institutional matters.