Does anyone here know if the laws in Arizona require a priest or minister or elder to report cases of child abuse to the authorities? Someone I know needs this information asap and you can probably guess why.
Thanks.
ARIZONA LAWS ON PEDOPHILIA....HELP NEEDED
by Mary 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Highlander
I'm not an attorney, and my info is based on an internet search but it appears that any person of religious authority is required by Arizona law, to report any known child abuse.
http://www.naccchildlaw.org/childrenlaw/documents/MandatoryReporting_000.pdf
-
-
Highlander
Professionals Required to Report
Physicians, assistants, optometrists, dentists, etc etc.
Peace Officers, members of the clergy, priests or christian science practitioners
parents, stepparents or guardians.
school personnel or domestic violence victim advocates.
any other person who has responsiblity for the care or treatment of the minor.
-
Mary
Thanks so much you guys!!
Edited to add: OK, I clicked on the link that you gave me Blondie, and I'm confused by the following:
State Statutes Results
Arizona
Child Abuse and Neglect
Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: Full-Text Excerpts of State Laws ( PDF - 262 KB) publication.
Citation: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. ยง 13-3620(A)-(B) (West, WESTLAW through 2003 2nd Spec. Sess.)
Statute Text:
Any...member of the clergy, priest, or Christian Science practitioner...who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense, or neglect...shall immediately report or cause a report to be made...A member of the clergy, Christian Science practitioner, or priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, Christian Science practitioner, or priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, Christian Science practitioner, or priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, Christian Science practitioner, or priest determines that is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to the personal observations the member of the clergy, Christian Science practitioner, or priest may otherwise make of the minor.
The first part sounds as though they ARE required by law to report abuse, but in the second paragraph, it sounds as though it's saying that if someone confesses to abusing minors, that the priest or clergy "....may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the[y] determine that is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion...." We all know what that would mean for the elders. They would certain deem that withholding reporting the crime as being 'reasonable and necessary withinthe concepts of the religion.'
Am I reading this right? Anyone else understand this?
-
Highlander
Hi Mary,
I saw that too. My impression is that if the priest learns of child abuse within the realm of a confession then he is not required to report it. Yet if the priest learns of child abuse outside of a confession, such as rumors or common knowledge among the congregation members, then he is required to report it.
My question is: What would keep a priest from claiming that all child abuse he is aware of was learned through a confession? In other words, even if a priest learned of child abuse through a 'non-confession' way such as a rumor, what would stop him from claiming it was learned through a confession? And thereby allowing for him to keep it a secret.
Arizona seems a bit messed up to me.
-
skeeter1
Mary,
The confession & JC committees. Can we say that the JC committee is confidential? Were others present? If anyone other than the clergy & the sinner or affected person were present - then I wonder if it's to be held confidential????
California's Supreme Court held that the clergy-sinner confidentiality can not be used by the church to hide its crimes. It's for the benefit of the followers. If the affected follower wants to wave it, the confidentiality is no more.
Late night thoughts. I'll look into it more tomorrow. I'll see what I find & p.m. you.
Skeeter
-
Scully
As far as I remember from what I read about the California lawsuits, clergy-penitent confidentiality does NOT apply to JW Judicial Committees.
The fact that there are THREE committee members and the fact that records of the DFing are sent to the WTS HQ per WTS policy means that it does not meet the accepted standard for confidential communication between a clergy member and a penitent.
As well, there is the WTS long-standing position that Jehovah's Witnesses are not made up of "clergy" and "laity" classes, so because they claim that they do not have a clergy, how the hell can they possibly claim "clergy" privilege?
-
stillconcerned
I am NOT giving legal advise, as i do not know the entire circumstance....
JC were found by the Calif court to not fall under protections of clergy privilege.
If anyone else is present when 'confession' is made, in general, any privilege is broken.
If child makes outcry, no privilege exists.
If perp 'confesses' (in some states), and no independent information comes to 'priest' (from child/parents of child, etc), privilege MAY apply.
If 'investigation' is underway, by religious committee or org (e.g. JC), no privilege exists, as, by definition, other info came to JC, or there would be no 'investigation'.
Kimberlee D. Norris
attorney at law