Arizona

A.R.S. § 13-3620 — Arizona mandatory-reporting statute

Clergy named as mandatory reporter?: Yes
Confessional exemption?: Yes

Statute: A.R.S. § 13-3620
Clergy named: Expressly
Pending: —

Arizona names clergy as mandated reporters in plain statutory text at A.R.S. § 13-3620(A). The same subsection then lets the clergy member decide, alone, whether withholding a confession is 'reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.' No court reviews whether that religious judgment was sound; a court can ask only whether the communication qualified for the exception in the first place. A separate subsection (L) layers on a testimonial privilege in child-abuse litigation that only the clergy member can waive. The pressure on that arrangement is live in the courts and recurring in the legislature: HB2039 would have narrowed the carveout when abuse is ongoing or threatens other minors, though it was held in committee, and the Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to decide, for the first time, the standards for Arizona's clergy-penitent privilege under A.R.S. § 13-4062(3) in Rodriguez-Ramirez. That case matters because a court applied § 13-4062(3) to suppress a confession even in a criminal child-abuse case, so repealing the reporting carveout is not enough on its own: the clergy privilege has to be shut in § 13-3620(L), with § 13-3620(K) conformed, and closed directly in § 12-2233 and § 13-4062(3) to remove any remaining statutory-privilege argument. Arizona is where the legislature and the courts are being asked the same question, and UCO is pushing for the version where the institution does not get to be the one who decides.

Section 01What needs to change

What needs to change in Arizona.

The carveout is self-determined by the clergy member
Under A.R.S. § 13-3620(A), a clergy member who receives a confidential communication or confession **'may withhold reporting'** when the clergy member determines withholding is 'reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.' Two features make the privilege especially strong: the determination sits inside the religious institution, not a court, and § 13-3620(K) abrogates every privilege in child-abuse litigation, administrative proceedings, and investigations except the attorney-client privilege and the clergy testimonial privilege in subsection (L). Neither of those two discharges the duty to report. The (A) exemption applies only to the communication itself. Personal observations of the minor remain reportable.
View source ↗
A separate testimonial privilege layered on top, at § 13-3620(L)
Subsection (L) provides that in any civil or criminal litigation involving a child's abuse, neglect, dependency, or abandonment, a clergy member 'shall not, without his consent, be examined as a witness' about a confession made in that role. The subsection expressly states that the testimonial privilege does not discharge the underlying reporting duty in subsection (A). The two operate in parallel: the reporting carveout protects pre-litigation silence, and the testimonial privilege protects in-court silence. Section 13-3620(K) abrogates every other privilege in a child-abuse proceeding except attorney-client and the subsection (L) clergy privilege, so within such a proceeding (L) is the clergy shield that stands, and repealing (L) plus conforming (K), which excepts 'the privilege under subsection L' by name, closes it there. Two clergy privilege statutes outside § 13-3620 remain in the picture: § 12-2233 in civil actions and § 13-4062(3) in criminal ones. In Rodriguez-Ramirez a court applied § 13-4062(3) to suppress a confession in a criminal child-abuse case without addressing § 13-3620(K), and that privilege's standards are now before the Arizona Supreme Court, so a thorough bill closes § 12-2233 and § 13-4062(3) directly to remove the statutory-privilege argument.
View source ↗
Penalty tier: class 1 misdemeanor, with a class 6 felony when the underlying conduct is a 'reportable offense'
A violation of § 13-3620 is a class 1 misdemeanor. When the failure to report involves a reportable offense (categories listed in Title 13 chapters 14 and 35.1, plus child sex trafficking, incest, and several others), it becomes a class 6 felony. The felony tier signals statutory seriousness even as the (A) carveout keeps the disclosure decision inside the religious institution.

Section 02What's needed

What it takes to close the gap.

From Arizona's law as it stands today to the standard UCO is working toward, every adult who learns a child is being harmed has to report it:

A.R.S. § 13-3620(A) names clergy as mandated reporters, then lets the clergy member decide alone whether withholding a confession is 'reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion,' with no court reviewing whether that religious judgment was sound. A second layer at § 13-3620(L) adds a testimonial privilege that can keep what was learned out of court. HB2039, held in committee in the 2026 session, would not fix this: it amends § 13-3620(A), § 13-3620(L), and the civil privilege at § 12-2233, but keeps the clergy member as the sole decision-maker in each, adding an exception the cleric decides applies only when abuse is ongoing or may threaten other minors, so a confession of past abuse could still be withheld. A complete reform has two core moves and a third to close off any argument. First, strike the 'may withhold reporting' clause from § 13-3620(A) outright, so the reporting duty does not turn on the clergy member's own judgment. Second, repeal the testimonial privilege in § 13-3620(L) and conform § 13-3620(K): because (K) already abrogates every privilege in a child-abuse proceeding except attorney-client and (L), removing (L) closes the courtroom shield in those proceedings, and (K) must be conformed so it no longer excepts 'the privilege under subsection L' by name. Third, close the clergy privilege in § 12-2233 (civil) and § 13-4062(3) (criminal) directly, to remove any statutory-privilege argument that a confession stays shielded. That last point is live: in Rodriguez-Ramirez a court applied § 13-4062(3) to suppress a confession in a criminal child-abuse case, and the standards for that privilege are now before the Arizona Supreme Court.

Section 03How you can help

Concrete ways to support reform in Arizona.

Donate

Donate.

Donations fund Arizona-specific research, coalition outreach, and the long work of pushing the carveout back.

Mission supportDonate→

Section 04Timeline

How Arizona got here.

2023
First Travers clergy-reporting bill
Rep. Stacey Travers introduces the first of what becomes a recurring measure to narrow the clergy-confession carveout in A.R.S. § 13-3620. The bill does not advance.
View source ↗
2025-07
Bisbee civil-suit reversal
The Arizona Court of Appeals reverses summary judgment for the religious institution in the Bisbee abuse litigation, holding that § 13-3620(A) imposes a reporting duty on clergy unless the statutory exception applies and finding fact questions about confidentiality and waiver.
View source ↗
2025-11
Arizona Supreme Court grants review in Rodriguez-Ramirez
The Arizona Supreme Court agrees to hear Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State on issues of first impression about the standards for the clergy-penitent privilege. Supplemental and amicus briefing runs through January 2026.
View source ↗
2025-12
HB2039 pre-filed
Rep. Stacey Travers pre-files HB2039 for the 57th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session. The bill would narrow the § 13-3620 carveout when abuse is ongoing, will continue, or may threaten other minors.
View source ↗
2026-01
HB2039 read a second time, then held in committee
HB2039 is introduced January 12, 2026, read a second time January 13, 2026, and referred to the House Committees on Judiciary and Rules. It was held in committee without a hearing, and its final disposition for the 57th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session is recorded as held in committees. Rep. Travers has introduced versions of this measure in every session since 2023.
View source ↗

Section 05Key cases

Litigation shaping the law.

Doe v. Corporation of the President (Bisbee, AZ)
No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0293 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 29, 2025)2025
Civil action arising from the Bisbee, Arizona child-abuse case in which a perpetrator confessed to clergy and the abuse continued for years before law enforcement intervened. The Arizona Court of Appeals **reversed summary judgment** for the religious institution and held that § 13-3620(A) imposes a legal duty on clergy to report unless the statutory clergy exception applies. The court found fact questions about whether the communications were confidential and whether any clergy-penitent privilege had been waived. The panel treated the § 13-3620(A) carveout as a defense to be proved rather than a categorical shield. It is an unpublished memorandum decision that by its own terms creates no legal precedent and may not generally be cited, and the Arizona Supreme Court granted review on January 6, 2026 and heard argument en banc on March 24, 2026 (CV-25-0213-PR), so the case now sits with that court.
View source ↗
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State of Arizona
1 CA-SA 23-0182 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2025), review granted, CR-25-0157-PR (Ariz. Nov. 25, 2025)2025
Pastor indicted for sexual offenses against a minor moved to suppress a covert recording of his confession to a co-pastor. On special action, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and granted relief, holding the clergy-penitent privilege under A.R.S. § 13-4062(3) applied and adopting a subjective test focused on whether the penitent reasonably believed the conversation was privileged. **The Arizona Supreme Court granted review on November 25, 2025** on issues of first impression about the standards for the clergy-penitent privilege. The case was argued and submitted for decision en banc on February 26, 2026 and a decision is pending. It is the leading near-term case on Arizona's privilege rules.
View source ↗

Section 06Background

Public-record sources UCO is tracking.

Always verify against the underlying statute or filing before quoting.

Arizona State Legislature· current text 2025
A.R.S. § 13-3620 — Duty to report abuse, physical injury, neglect, and denial or deprivation of medical or surgical care or nourishment of minors
The principal mandatory-reporting statute. Subsection (A) imposes the reporting duty, expressly enumerates clergy among reporters, and contains the self-determined confidential-communication/confession carveout. Subsection (L) layers a separate testimonial privilege in child-abuse litigation and confirms that the testimonial privilege does not discharge the (A) reporting duty.
View source ↗
FindLaw / Thomson Reuters
A.R.S. § 13-3620 (FindLaw annotated reprint)
Annotated statute reprint useful for cross-checking subsection lettering against the legislature version. Confirms that subsection (L) preserves a separate testimonial privilege for clergy in civil and criminal child-abuse litigation, waivable only by the clergy member's own consent, distinct from but consistent with the reporting carveout in subsection (A).
View source ↗
Arizona State Legislature· 2025-12-04
HB2039 — clergy; priests; duty to report (introduced text)
Introduced text of HB2039 for the 57th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session. Would amend A.R.S. §§ 8-201, 12-2233, and 13-3620 to narrow the clergy-confession carveout when abuse is ongoing or threatens other minors, and to add an exception to the civil clergy-penitent privilege in § 12-2233 so a clergy member who determines that a confession involves ongoing abuse may be examined about it without the penitent's consent that § 12-2233 otherwise requires.
View source ↗
LegiScan· 2026-01-13
AZ HB2039 — bill status (57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Session)
Bill-status tracker for HB2039. Records introduction January 12, 2026 and second reading January 13, 2026. The Arizona Legislature's own bill-status API records the bill's final disposition for the 57th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session as held in committee, with no action taken in either Judiciary or Rules.
View source ↗
Arizona State Legislature· 2023-01-25
AZ HB2454 — clergy; priests; duty to report (introduced text, 56th Leg., 1st Reg. Session)
Introduced text of HB2454, sponsored by Rep. Stacey Travers, for the 56th Legislature, 1st Regular Session. Would have amended A.R.S. §§ 8-201, 12-2233, and 13-3620 to narrow the clergy-confession carveout when abuse is ongoing or may threaten other minors. The bill did not become law.
View source ↗
Arizona State Legislature
A.R.S. § 12-2233 — Clergyman or priest (civil clergy-penitent privilege)
Free-standing clergy-penitent privilege in civil actions, outside the reporting statute: 'In a civil action a clergyman or priest shall not, without the consent of the person making a confession, be examined as to any confession made to him in his character as clergyman or priest.' It is a free-standing privilege statute outside § 13-3620. Within a child-abuse proceeding, § 13-3620(K) already abrogates it except for attorney-client and the subsection (L) clergy privilege; closing § 12-2233 directly removes any residual statutory-privilege argument, including in proceedings that fall outside § 13-3620(K).
View source ↗
Arizona State Legislature
A.R.S. § 13-4062(3) — Anti-marital fact privilege; other privileged communications (criminal)
The criminal clergy-penitent privilege: 'A clergyman or priest, without consent of the person making the confession, as to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs.' It is the free-standing criminal clergy privilege outside § 13-3620. Although § 13-3620(K) abrogates privileges in a child-abuse proceeding except attorney-client and subsection (L), a court applied § 13-4062(3) to suppress a confession in Rodriguez-Ramirez, whose standards are now before the Arizona Supreme Court, so closing § 13-4062(3) directly removes the statutory-privilege argument.
View source ↗
Child Welfare Information Gateway, U.S. HHS Children's Bureau· 2023
Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect — Arizona
Federal child-welfare summary citing A.R.S. § 13-3620 and independently confirming that clergy are required to report suspected child abuse or neglect, that Arizona preserves the confidential-communication/confession exception, and that the exception does not cover personal observations or discharge the duty to report.
View source ↗
Arizona Supreme Court· 2025-11-25
Arizona Supreme Court Conference Minutes No. 9151 (Nov 25, 2025), Rodriguez-Ramirez briefing order (CR-25-0157-PR)
Conference minutes granting review in CR-25-0157-PR and ordering simultaneous supplemental briefs no later than December 15, 2025, amicus briefs by December 30, 2025, and responses to amicus briefs by January 20, 2026. The minutes direct that the case be set for oral argument and fix no argument date; the later extended schedule comes from subsequent docket orders. Substantiates that supplemental and amicus briefing ran through January 2026.
View source ↗
Arizona State Legislature· 2024
AZ HB2712, clergy; priests; duty to report (introduced text, 56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Session)
Travers-sponsored HB2712 (2024) amends A.R.S. 8-201, 12-2233, and 13-3620 with the same reference title as HB2454 (2023), HB2070 (2025), and HB2039 (2026), documenting the 2024 session and confirming a version every regular session from 2023 through 2026.
View source ↗

Other states

Last reviewed July 22, 2026 · by Unheard Child Org research teamHow we track this