Skip to content 
Editor’s Note: This article is based on the Arizona Supreme Court’s July 30, 2026, opinion summary [PDF] and reporting by Arizona’s Family and The Guardian.
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that courts generally must defer to a religious institution’s determination that information about child abuse was obtained through a confidential confession or other protected religious communication.
The unanimous decision means Arizona clergy members may withhold a report of suspected child abuse when they learn about it through a confession or confidential communication and determine that maintaining secrecy is “reasonable and necessary” under their religion’s teachings.
The ruling arose from a lawsuit involving three children who alleged that leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report abuse disclosed by their father years before authorities intervened.
Arizona Law Requires Most Suspected Abuse To Be Reported
Arizona law generally requires anyone who reasonably believes a minor has been abused to immediately report the suspected abuse to law enforcement or another appropriate government agency.
The statute, however, includes an exception for clergy members. A religious leader may refrain from reporting when the information was obtained through a confession or confidential communication and the leader determines that confidentiality is required within the concepts of the religion.
The central issue before the Arizona Supreme Court was who gets to decide whether that religious exception applies: the church itself or a judge and jury reviewing the church’s interpretation afterward.
The court concluded that judges and juries generally cannot second-guess a religious organization’s interpretation of its own doctrine without improperly interfering in religious matters protected by the First Amendment.
Lawsuit Involved Abuse Disclosed to LDS Bishops
The case began with a 2020 lawsuit filed by three children of Paul and Leizza Adams against the LDS Church, two bishops from the church’s Bisbee Ward and other defendants.
According to the court’s summary, Paul Adams disclosed the abuse of one of his children to Bishop John Herrod in November 2011. He later made another disclosure during a conversation involving Herrod and Leizza Adams, and the abuse was discussed again during a church disciplinary council overseen by Bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy.
The church excommunicated Adams in 2013, but church officials did not report the abuse to law enforcement or child-welfare authorities at the time.
Paul and Leizza Adams were not criminally charged until 2017. Leizza Adams later received a 30-month prison sentence, while Paul Adams died by suicide in jail before trial.
The children alleged that the bishops and church violated Arizona’s mandatory-reporting law by remaining silent after learning about the abuse.
Appeals Court Had Revived the Children’s Lawsuit
A Cochise County judge dismissed the lawsuit against the church defendants in 2023, ruling that the bishops were not legally required to report information obtained through confession and confidential church proceedings.
The Arizona Court of Appeals later reinstated the case. The appeals court reasoned that a judge or jury could examine whether confidentiality had been waived because the information was shared with Adams’ wife and members of the disciplinary council, some of whom may not have been clergy.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.
Court Says Religious Doctrine Is Not for a Jury To Interpret
Writing for the unanimous court, Vice Chief Justice John Lopez said the state’s reporting law and First Amendment protections prevented a secular court from deciding whether the church correctly interpreted its own confidentiality rules.
The court found that the LDS defendants regarded Adams’ statements and the disciplinary proceedings as confidential religious communications. Because there was no evidence that the church used fraud or collusion to fabricate a religious justification and evade the law, the courts were required to defer to that interpretation.
The ruling does not create a blanket exemption allowing clergy to conceal abuse learned in any setting. Clergy members who become aware of abuse outside a protected confession or confidential religious communication remain subject to Arizona’s reporting requirements.
Ruling Raises Concerns About Child-Protection Oversight
The decision gives religious institutions substantial control over deciding whether certain disclosures qualify for Arizona’s clergy-reporting exception.
That distinction can be consequential when church officials are the first adults to learn that a child may be in danger. In the Adams case, years passed between the father’s initial disclosure to church leaders and the parents’ arrests.
The LDS Church welcomed the ruling, saying Arizona law recognizes the confidentiality of religious confession while also affirming a shared commitment to protecting vulnerable people.
For survivors and child-protection advocates, however, the ruling is likely to intensify the broader debate over whether clergy-confidentiality laws can leave children exposed when religious institutions choose not to involve outside authorities.
