What needs to change in Utah.

• Clergy-confession carveout in § 80-2-602(3)(a)

  Although Utah's reporting statute imposes a duty on any person (subsection (1)), § 80-2-602(3)(a) carves out a clergy member for a confession made while functioning in a ministerial capacity and without the individual's consent, when the perpetrator made the confession directly to the clergy member and the clergy member is bound by canon law or church doctrine to keep it confidential. Direct-perpetrator confessions to clergy bound by doctrinal confidentiality are exempt from Utah's otherwise near-universal duty to report. Subsection (3)(b) carries a second carveout, for attorneys and their employees when the knowledge arises from representing a client, except where Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 permits the attorney to reveal the abuse to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

  View source ↗
• Existing partial duty in § 80-2-602(4)(a) for non-confession sources

  The clergy exemption does not stand alone. Subsection (3) opens with the words 'Subject to Subsection (4)', and subsection (4)(a) provides that when a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report the information even if the member of the clergy also received information about the abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator. A clergy member who learns of the same abuse from a victim, a parent, or their own observation therefore has to report, and the fact that the perpetrator also confessed is not an answer. What subsection (4)(a) does not reach is the case where the confession is the only source of the information. That is the channel the carveout in subsection (3)(a) still protects, and it is the gap Utah has not closed.

  View source ↗
• 2024 amendment (HB432) added a permissive option but did not close the carveout

  HB432 passed the House 64-0 and the Senate 26-0 and was signed March 13, 2024, taking effect May 1, 2024. It added subsection (4)(b): when a clergy member reasonably believes a child is the subject of ongoing abuse or neglect, the clergy member may report even if the perpetrator confessed. The verb is may, not shall. The only other provision the bill added, subsection (4)(d), states that a clergy report is not intended to affect the application of any privilege under the Utah Rules of Evidence, which is a privilege savings clause rather than a new liability shield; the bill also renumbered the former subsection (4)(b) as (4)(c). Notably, the bill did not create the partial duty in subsection (4)(a), which was already in the statute and which HB432 left untouched. The mandatory-reporting gap in subsection (3)(a) remains.

  View source ↗
• HB444 (2024) would have narrowed the exemption itself, and was struck

  Unlike HB432, which only added a permissive option, HB444 would have disapplied the subsection (3)(a) exemption altogether in two situations: where the clergy member has reason to believe the confessed abuse or neglect is ongoing or is likely to occur again in the future, or where the clergy member discloses the confession to a third party and that disclosure is not reasonably necessary to fulfill their ministerial duties toward the individual making the confession. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Brian S. King, received a first reading, and never got a committee hearing or a floor vote; the enacting clause was struck and the bill was filed on March 1, 2024.

  View source ↗
• Broad evidentiary privilege under Scott v. Hammock reinforces the carveout

  In Scott v. Hammock (Utah 1994), the Utah Supreme Court held that nonpenitential communications to clergy are privileged if they are intended to be confidential and made for the purpose of seeking spiritual counseling, guidance, or advice from a cleric acting in a professional role pursuant to the discipline of the church. The court construed the evidentiary privilege then codified at § 78-24-8(3), now § 78B-1-137(3). It did not reach the reporting statute, and the two texts differ: § 80-2-602(3)(a) is limited to a confession the perpetrator made directly to the clergy member. The case is the interpretive backdrop advocates should expect to see argued for a broad reading of the reporting carveout, not a holding that already broadens it.

  View source ↗

What it takes to close the gap.

How Utah got here.

• 2020
  HB90 fails

  Rep. Angela Romero's HB90 would have removed the clergy-penitent privilege exception from Utah's reporting statute (then at § 62A-4a-403). Held in the House Rules Committee; it never received a floor vote.

  View source ↗
• 2023
  Reform bills stall without a hearing

  Bills to narrow or remove the clergy exception were introduced in the 2023 session, and none of them advanced. As lawmakers prepared to adjourn, the effort had not received even a hearing. The official record for each bill is listed in this state's sources.

  View source ↗
• 2024
  HB432 signed

  The Legislature passed HB432, which permits but does not require clergy to report ongoing abuse learned in confession, and added a clause stating that such a report is not intended to affect any privilege under the Utah Rules of Evidence.

  View source ↗

Litigation shaping the law.

• Scott v. Hammock

  870 P.2d 947 (Utah 1994)·1994

  On a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the Utah Supreme Court held that nonpenitential communications to clergy are privileged if intended to be confidential and made for the purpose of seeking spiritual counseling from a cleric acting in a professional role pursuant to church discipline. It is the leading Utah authority on the scope of the clergy-penitent evidentiary privilege. The reporting statute was not at issue, so the case does not itself widen the § 80-2-602(3)(a) carveout, but it is the reading advocates should expect to be invoked in support of a broad one.

  View source ↗

Public-record sources UCO is tracking.

Always verify against the underlying statute or filing before quoting.

• Utah State Legislature· current text 2026
  Utah Code § 80-2-602 — Reporting requirements

  Canonical statutory text. Subsection (1) imposes an any-person reporting duty; subsection (3)(a) preserves the clergy confession carveout; subsection (4)(b), added by HB432 in 2024, permits clergy to report ongoing abuse learned in confession.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· current text 2026
  Utah Code § 78B-1-137 — Witnesses; privileged communications

  The evidentiary privilege backstop. Subsection (3) provides that clergy cannot be examined about a confession without the confessing individual's consent. The testimonial privilege the § 80-2-602(3)(a) reporting carveout protects.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· 2024
  HB432 (2024) — Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Amendments

  Official bill page for the 2024 amendment that added the permissive 'may report' option and a Rules of Evidence privilege savings clause while leaving the mandatory-reporting carveout intact. Passed House 64-0 and Senate 26-0; signed March 13, 2024.

  View source ↗
• KUER (NPR Utah) / Associated Press· February 29, 2024
  Utah Legislature expands ability of clergy members to report child abuse

  Contemporaneous coverage of HB432 confirming it stops short of removing the clergy exemption, and chronicling the unsuccessful 2020, 2023, and 2024 attempts to narrow it. Establishes the recent-attempt urgency tier.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· 2024
  H.B. 131 (2024), Clergy Child Abuse Reporting Requirements

  Official bill page confirming HB131 was struck and filed on March 1, 2024; first reading January 16, 2024, with no committee hearing or floor vote. Read against current law, the bill's only substantive addition was permissive: a clause providing that notwithstanding the exemption, a clergy member may report. The mandatory both-sources duty it also carried was existing text relettered from subsection (4)(a) to (4)(b), not a new duty.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· 2024
  H.B. 444 (2024), Clergy Reporting Requirements

  Official bill page for the 2024 attempt to narrow the exemption itself, disapplying it where the abuse is ongoing or likely to recur or where the confession is disclosed to a third party beyond ministerial necessity. Sponsored by Rep. Brian S. King; enacting clause struck and bill filed March 1, 2024.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· 2023
  H.B. 115 (2023), Child Abuse Reporting Revisions

  Official record for Rep. Angela Romero's 2023 bill to eliminate the clergy exception. First reading January 17, 2023; enacting clause struck and bill filed March 3, 2023, with no committee hearing or floor vote.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· 2023
  H.B. 212 (2023), Clergy Child Abuse Reporting Requirements

  Official record for Rep. Brian S. King's 2023 permissive-reporting bill. First reading January 17, 2023; enacting clause struck and bill filed March 3, 2023, with no committee hearing or floor vote.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Legislature· 2023
  S.B. 72 (2023), Child Abuse Reporting Requirements

  Official record for Sen. Stephanie Pitcher's 2023 bill to narrow the exception for ongoing abuse. First reading January 17, 2023; referred to Senate Rules, then struck and filed March 3, 2023, with no committee hearing or floor vote.

  View source ↗
• Utah State Courts· current text 2026
  Utah Rule of Evidence 503: Religious privilege

  Utah R. Evid. 503(b) protects any confidential communication made to a cleric in the cleric's religious capacity, broader than the statutory privilege at § 78B-1-137(3), which is limited to a confession. Rule 503 is a Utah Supreme Court rule; under Utah Constitution art. VIII, § 4 the Legislature may amend a rule of evidence only by a two-thirds vote of both houses, so a simple-majority repeal bill cannot reach it. Substantiates the whatsNeeded caution on Rule 503 and the two-thirds threshold.

  View source ↗