New Jersey

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 — New Jersey mandatory-reporting statute

Clergy named as mandatory reporter?: No
Confessional exemption?: Yes

THE GAP

New Jersey's reporting duty is written to reach any person, and it says nothing about clergy or about confidential conversations with a member of the clergy. What is unsettled is how that universal duty fits with a separate rule that shields confidential communications to a cleric. That shield has no child-abuse exception, and the state's highest court applied it in a criminal case to bar a pastor's testimony about a confidential meeting with a man accused of sexually abusing his daughters. That ruling decided what evidence a court may hear, not who must report, and no court or statute has yet resolved whether the same shield can block a report. A 2019 rewrite raised penalties but left the shield in place. New Jersey needs to add a child-abuse exception to the cleric-penitent privilege itself, which lifts the shield both for reporting and for a cleric's testimony in court.

Statute: N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10
Clergy named: All-person
Pending: —

New Jersey's reporting statute reads as one of the broadest in the country: any person with reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused must report to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, immediately, by telephone or otherwise. Knowing failure to report is a disorderly persons offense; knowing failure to report sexual abuse is a fourth-degree crime. Clergy are covered the same way every other adult is, by being a person. The statute itself says nothing about the cleric-penitent privilege. It neither preserves the privilege as an exception nor overrides it for reporting purposes. That silence is the whole story. In 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court read the cleric-penitent privilege at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 (N.J.R.E. 511) to apply in a child sexual abuse prosecution, barring a pastor's testimony about a private meeting in which the defendant responded to abuse allegations without directly admitting them. The Court decided that case on evidence-law grounds alone and never reached the reporting statute, and the 2019 amendment to the reporting statute left the privilege untouched. Because the reporting duty already reaches clergy through the any-person rule, the structural reform UCO is pushing for in New Jersey is a child-abuse exception to the cleric-penitent privilege itself, so the shield cannot block either a report or a cleric's testimony.

Section 01What needs to change

What needs to change in New Jersey.

The current statute leaves a gap between what the law requires on paper and what survivor-protection demands in practice:

Any-person reporting duty at N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10
The reporting statute applies to **any person** with reasonable cause to believe a child has been subjected to child abuse, including sexual abuse. Reports go to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, immediately, by telephone or otherwise (1-877-NJ ABUSE). Knowing failure to report is a disorderly persons offense under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.14(a); knowing failure to report sexual abuse is a crime of the fourth degree under 9:6-8.14(b). The penalty provisions live in 9:6-8.14, not in the reporting section itself; their enacted text is in P.L. 2019, c.40 (cited below). Clergy are covered by the universal duty because they are persons, not because they are enumerated.
View source ↗
Reporting statute silent on cleric-penitent privilege
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 contains no clergy-specific clause and no language preserving or overriding any evidentiary privilege. The federal Child Welfare Information Gateway's New Jersey clergy summary states verbatim that the privileged-communications issue 'is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.' That is the textbook silent posture: neither a savings clause nor an abrogation clause.
View source ↗
Separate cleric-penitent privilege at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 / N.J.R.E. 511 has no child-abuse exception
The evidentiary privilege at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23, also codified as N.J.R.E. 511, protects confidential communications to a cleric acting in a professional or spiritual-advisor role. The privilege belongs to both the cleric and the communicant. The statute contains no child-abuse carveout, and the reporting statute does not override it. Together that pairing is what makes the privilege posture silent rather than overridden.
View source ↗
Most recent reporting-statute amendment was 2019; it did not address the privilege
P.L. 2019, c.40 amended N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 and 9:6-8.14, retaining the any-person reporting language and upgrading penalties for knowingly failing to report child sexual abuse. The enacted text did not add a clergy-specific reporting rule and did not address the cleric-penitent privilege. The privilege at 2A:84A-23 was last amended in 1994 and contains no child-abuse exception; no New Jersey statute cited in this file adds one.
View source ↗

Section 02What's needed

What it takes to close the gap.

From New Jersey'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:

New Jersey's gap is not in the reporting statute. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 requires any person with reasonable cause to report, covering clergy like every other adult. The problem sits one title over, in the cleric-penitent privilege at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23, which has no child-abuse exception the reporting statute ever touched. In *State v. J.G.* (2010) the New Jersey Supreme Court applied the privilege to bar a pastor's testimony about a confidential conversation with a man accused of abusing his daughters; the Court did not reach the reporting statute, and the 2019 amendment left the privilege alone. New Jersey should add a child-abuse exception to the cleric-penitent privilege itself, at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 and its evidence-rule twin N.J.R.E. 511. That single change reaches both problems at once: it lifts the privilege as a shield against the duty to report and as a bar to a cleric's testimony in the prosecution that follows. Amending only the reporting statute would leave the courtroom shield from *State v. J.G.* standing.

Section 03How you can help

Concrete ways to support reform in New Jersey.

Donate

Donate.

Donations fund New Jersey-specific research, coalition outreach, and the long work of getting a child-abuse exception into the cleric-penitent privilege itself, so it can block neither a report nor a cleric's testimony.

Mission supportDonate→

Section 04Timeline

How New Jersey got here.

1971
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 enacted with any-person reporting duty
New Jersey adopts a universal reporting trigger: any person with reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused must report immediately. The statute is silent on the cleric-penitent privilege from enactment forward.
View source ↗
2010
State v. J.G. enforces the privilege against the State
The New Jersey Supreme Court bars a pastor's testimony about a confidential meeting with a man accused of sexually abusing his daughters, applying the cleric-penitent privilege at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 and adopting an objective reasonable-expectation-of-confidentiality test. The decision does not address the reporting statute; the privilege question was decided on evidence-law grounds alone.
View source ↗
2019
P.L. 2019, c.40 upgrades penalties; privilege untouched
The legislature amends 9:6-8.10 and 9:6-8.14, retaining the any-person language and raising the penalty for knowing failure to report sexual abuse to a fourth-degree crime. The amendment does not add a clergy-specific provision and does not address the privilege.
View source ↗
2026
Structural gap unchanged as of the 2026 session
As of the 2026 legislative session, no bill in the New Jersey Legislature has been identified as proposing to amend the reporting statute or the cleric-penitent privilege at 2A:84A-23. The structural gap remains where State v. J.G. left it sixteen years ago.

Section 05Key cases

Litigation shaping the law.

State v. J.G.
201 N.J. 369 (2010)2010
The New Jersey Supreme Court applied the cleric-penitent privilege at N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 and N.J.R.E. 511 to bar a pastor's testimony about a private meeting with a man whose daughters had accused him of sexual abuse. The daughters disclosed the abuse to their mother, who told the pastor before the meeting; in the meeting itself the defendant made incriminating statements without directly admitting the allegations. The Court adopted an objective reasonable-expectation-of-confidentiality test: the privilege applies whenever, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable penitent would have believed the communication was made in confidence to a cleric in the cleric's professional or spiritual-advisor role. The opinion decided the privilege question on evidence-law grounds alone and never mentioned the reporting statute at 9:6-8.10; no New Jersey statute or decision has read the any-person reporting duty to abrogate the privilege. This is the load-bearing authority for the silent-posture classification.
View source ↗

Section 06Background

Public-record sources UCO is tracking.

Always verify against the underlying statute or filing before quoting.

Justia US Law (2025 New Jersey Revised Statutes)· 2025
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 — Report of abuse
Codified text of the principal mandatory-reporting statute. Operative language: 'Any person having reasonable cause to believe that a child has been subjected to child abuse, including sexual abuse, or acts of child abuse shall report the same immediately to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency by telephone or otherwise.' Contains no clergy-specific clause and no language addressing the cleric-penitent privilege. Anchors both the all-person status bucket and the silent privilege posture.
View source ↗
U.S. HHS / Child Welfare Information Gateway· May 2023
Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect — New Jersey
Federal Children's Bureau state summary citing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 and applying the any-person reporting duty to clergy. On privileged communications, the entry states verbatim that the issue 'is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.' Independent secondary confirmation of the silent privilege classification.
View source ↗
Justia US Law / New Jersey Courts (N.J.R.E. 511)· 2024
N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 — Cleric-penitent privilege
The codified cleric-penitent privilege, also incorporated as N.J.R.E. 511. The privilege belongs to both the cleric and the communicant and may be waived only on narrow specified grounds. Contains no child-abuse carveout. Read alongside 9:6-8.10, this is the textual foundation for the silent privilege posture.
View source ↗
New Jersey Supreme Court (via Justia)· 2010
State v. J.G., 201 N.J. 369 (2010)
The load-bearing case-law authority. The Court enforced the cleric-penitent privilege to bar a pastor's testimony about a confidential meeting with a man accused of sexually abusing his daughters, adopting an objective reasonable-expectation-of-confidentiality test. The opinion does not address the any-person reporting statute, and the legislature has not since said otherwise.
View source ↗
New Jersey Legislature· 2019
P.L. 2019, c.40 — Amends N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 and 9:6-8.14
The most recent reporting-statute amendment. Retained the any-person language and upgraded the penalty for knowing failure to report sexual abuse to a fourth-degree crime. Did not add a clergy-specific provision; did not address the cleric-penitent privilege.
View source ↗

Other states

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