Skip to content
Three children who endured years of abuse by their father are asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to reverse a previous ruling that cleared their family physician, who also served as their local LDS bishop. The physician, John Herrod, did not report the abuse after the father disclosed it to him in a religious confession — a decision the children’s legal team argues was a violation of mandatory reporting laws, Joe Duhownik of Courthouse News Service reported Tuesday.
The plaintiffs claim that Herrod waived clergy-penitent privilege by later telling the children’s mother about the confession and urging her to notify the police. The court is being asked to revisit the summary judgment that found Herrod did not waive confidentiality protections under Arizona law. The case has become a focal point in the broader legal discussion surrounding when clergy are obligated to report child abuse, even when information is shared in a spiritual setting.
The abuse in question was perpetrated by Paul Adams, the children’s father, over a span of at least seven years before his arrest and eventual suicide in 2017. In 2021, three of his children filed suit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, asserting that church leaders, including Herrod, knew about the abuse but failed to report it due to concerns over the church’s public image.
Named as defendants in the case are John Herrod, his wife Sherrie Farnsworth Herrod, and their company Lezner Medical Services. Herrod had served not only as the family’s religious leader but also their medical provider. In court filings, Herrod stated that Adams disclosed the abuse in a formal confession between 2010 and 2011. Rather than reporting the crime to authorities, Herrod said he was advised by church leaders in Salt Lake City to remain silent. Instead, he summoned both Adams and his wife, Leizza Adams, to his office and instructed Paul to confess to her directly and for her to contact the police.
Although Adams followed through and confessed to his wife, she did not report him. He later pleaded guilty to two counts of child abuse.
Attorney John Trebon, representing the children, argued before the appellate panel that Herrod lost his legal protection under clergy privilege the moment he involved Leizza Adams in the conversation.
“There’s no expectation of privacy,” Trebon said. “The privilege is waived the first day after the confession. If there’s no privilege, there is automatically a duty to report.”
Leizza Adams later testified that she did not interpret her conversation with Herrod as confidential. Herrod declined to elaborate further in his own deposition. Trebon also argued that Paul Adams’s later actions, including posting evidence of the abuse online, removed any expectation of secrecy and further invalidated claims of privilege.
Trebon emphasized, “The evidence is overwhelming that the conversation was never intended to remain in secrecy.”
Joseph Roth, attorney for Herrod and his medical practice, pushed back on a draft decision by the court that favors the plaintiffs. Roth maintained that Herrod’s actions were consistent with his religious obligations and did not constitute a waiver of privilege.
“We cannot let tragic facts make bad law,” Roth said. “This draft decision makes bad law.”
He further argued that Herrod’s insistence that Leizza Adams report the abuse only highlights his own religious limitations and does not shift the legal duty to him.
The court also heard arguments about whether the plaintiffs — who were only 11 years old, 7 years old, and 6 months old when the complaint was originally filed — should be allowed to submit new testimony now that they are older. The trial judge previously rejected this request as a “late disclosure.” Trebon pushed back, saying the children’s ability to articulate their experience had developed only recently, and their testimony should be heard.
“These are kids,” Trebon said. “They get old enough to recall and articulate, and now, my gosh, they can’t testify? They can’t say these things? Discovery is closed?”
Trebon also noted that he had offered to schedule depositions during the original discovery period, but the defense declined. Roth countered that allowing new testimony at this stage would unfairly prejudice the defense.
The panel of appellate judges — Christopher O’Neill, Lacey Stover Guard, and Sean Brearcliffe — has not yet issued a final ruling.
