New Mexico

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-3 — New Mexico mandatory-reporting statute

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

Statute: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-3
Clergy named: Expressly
Pending: —

New Mexico law names clergy as mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect, but only when the information is not privileged as a matter of law. The statute itself does not define what counts as privileged. That definition lives in Rule 11-506 NMRA, the clergy-penitent privilege adopted by the New Mexico Supreme Court as part of the Rules of Evidence. The result is a two-move dodge: the legislature names clergy in § 32A-4-3(A), then defers the operative limit on the duty to a court rule the legislature cannot unilaterally amend. The state Supreme Court confirmed the shape of that interaction in State v. Strauch (2015), and a 2025 statutory amendment that touched neighboring subsections left the clergy language and the privilege qualifier untouched. Reform here means moving two pieces, a statute and a court rule, at once.

Section 01What needs to change

What needs to change in New Mexico.

Clergy expressly named at § 32A-4-3(A), qualified by privilege
Subsection (A) enumerates 'a member of the clergy who has information that is not privileged as a matter of law' among mandated reporters, alongside physicians, residents, interns, law enforcement officers, judges, registered and visiting nurses, school employees, and social workers acting in an official capacity. Reports must go immediately to local law enforcement, the department (now the Health Care Authority for plan-of-safe-care notification), or a tribal agency for any Indian child residing in Indian country. Failure to report is a misdemeanor under § 32A-4-3(F).
View source ↗
Clergy-penitent privilege lives in Rule 11-506 NMRA, not in statute
New Mexico's clergy-penitent privilege is codified at **Rule 11-506 NMRA**, part of the judicial-branch Rules of Evidence. It lets a person refuse to disclose, and prevent a clergy member from disclosing, a confidential communication made for the purpose of seeking spiritual advice. The Rules of Evidence are reserved to the New Mexico Supreme Court under the state constitution. The legislature cannot rewrite Rule 11-506 on its own, which means the privilege qualifier in § 32A-4-3(A) is anchored to a definition outside legislative reach.
View source ↗
2025 amendment left the clergy and privilege language untouched
Laws 2025, ch. 156, § 8 (effective June 20, 2025) amended § 32A-4-3 to rename plan-of-care to plan-of-safe-care, shift federal CARA compliance from CYFD to the Health Care Authority, and extend Subsection H coverage to clinics providing prenatal or perinatal care. The Subsection A reporter list, the clergy enumeration, and the 'not privileged as a matter of law' qualifier were not touched. The expressly-named / privilege-preserved framework carried straight through the most recent revision.
View source ↗

Section 02What's needed

What it takes to close the gap.

Section 03How you can help

Concrete ways to support reform in New Mexico.

Donate

Donate.

Donations fund the slower work New Mexico requires: research that maps statute and court rule together, and the coalition outreach reform like this depends on.

Mission supportDonate→

Section 04Timeline

How New Mexico got here.

2003
Clergy added to the reporter list
Laws 2003, ch. 189, § 1 amended § 32A-4-3 to add 'a member of the clergy' to the enumerated mandated reporters and to attach the qualifier 'who has information that is not privileged as a matter of law.' The amendment shaped the structural split that still defines New Mexico's posture today.
View source ↗
2015
Strauch confirms privilege carve-outs survive the statute
The New Mexico Supreme Court reads § 32A-4-3(A) broadly as a universal reporting duty, while holding that evidentiary privileges under the Rules of Evidence remain intact. The decision anchors the interpretive framework that ties the statute to Rule 11-506 NMRA.
View source ↗
2021
Pritchett applies the framework to a pastor's testimony
The Court of Appeals holds that the reporting statute did not make a pastor's privileged communications admissible, reinforcing that § 32A-4-3 does not override the Rule 11-506 NMRA clergy-penitent privilege.
View source ↗
2025-06
Statutory revision leaves the carveout in place
Laws 2025, ch. 156, § 8 takes effect June 20, 2025, retitling plan-of-care to plan-of-safe-care and shifting responsibilities from CYFD to the Health Care Authority. The clergy enumeration and the 'not privileged as a matter of law' qualifier in Subsection A are not amended.
View source ↗

Section 05Key cases

Litigation shaping the law.

State v. Strauch
2015-NMSC-009, 345 P.3d 3172015
The New Mexico Supreme Court read § 32A-4-3(A) broadly to impose a reporting duty on 'every person,' rejecting the Court of Appeals' narrower reading limited to enumerated professionals. At the same time, the Court held that evidentiary privileges in the Rules of Evidence (Rule 11-504 NMRA for licensed social workers, and by parallel reasoning Rule 11-506 NMRA for clergy) continue to operate as carve-outs from the reporting obligation. Strauch is the controlling authority on how the statute's privilege qualifier interacts with court-promulgated privilege rules.
View source ↗
State v. Pritchett
2021 WL 3674571 (N.M. App. 2021)2021
A New Mexico Court of Appeals decision applying the Strauch framework to a pastor's testimony. The court held that § 32A-4-3 did not strip the privilege from confidential pastor-penitent communications or make them admissible. Pritchett reinforces that the mandatory-reporter statute does not, on its own, override the Rule 11-506 NMRA privilege.
View source ↗

Section 06Background

Public-record sources UCO is tracking.

Always verify against the underlying statute or filing before quoting.

New Mexico Compilation Commission / NMOneSource· current through 2025 session
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-3 — Duty to report child abuse and child neglect (NMOneSource, official)
Official state legal-research source published by the New Mexico Compilation Commission. Subsection (A) enumerates a member of the clergy alongside the other mandated reporters and attaches the 'who has information that is not privileged as a matter of law' qualifier that anchors the privilege-preserved posture.
View source ↗
Justia US Law· 2025
New Mexico Statutes Section 32A-4-3 (2025) — Justia mirror
Mirror of the current statute reflecting Laws 2025, ch. 156, § 8 (effective June 20, 2025). Justia's history line confirms that the clergy enumeration was inserted by the 2003 amendment and that the 2025 revision did not touch the Subsection A reporter list or the privilege qualifier.
View source ↗
Leagle (New Mexico Supreme Court opinion text)· March 9, 2015
State v. Strauch, 2015-NMSC-009, 345 P.3d 317
Full text of the New Mexico Supreme Court opinion reading § 32A-4-3(A) as imposing a universal reporting duty while confirming that Rules 11-504 and 11-506 NMRA evidentiary privileges continue to operate as carve-outs from that duty.
View source ↗
Victim Rights Law Center· 2020
Clergy Privacy FAQs — New Mexico
Practitioner FAQ quoting Rule 11-506(B) NMRA on the clergy-penitent privilege and tying it to the § 32A-4-3 reporting carve-out. Useful primary anchor for the Rule 11-506 NMRA text and the statute-to-rule cross-reference.
View source ↗
Child Welfare Information Gateway, U.S. HHS Children's Bureau· May 2023
Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect — New Mexico
Federal state-statute summary citing § 32A-4-3 and categorizing New Mexico as a state that both expressly enumerates clergy as mandated reporters and preserves the clergy-penitent privilege. Independent cross-validation for the expressly-named / privilege-preserved classification.
View source ↗
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, New Mexico Privilege Compendium· 1976
Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (N.M. 1976)
New Mexico Supreme Court held that under the state Constitution the Legislature lacks power to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure, which are vested exclusively in the court. Substantiates the constitutional reservation of rule-making authority asserted in legalNotes[1].body.
View source ↗

Other states

Last reviewed May 21, 2026 · by Unheard Child Org research teamHow we track this