Virginia
Va. Code § 63.2-1509(A)(19) — Virginia child-abuse reporting statute (clergy named, privilege carveout)
- Clergy named as mandatory reporter?
- Yes
- Confessional exemption?
- Yes
- Statute
- Va. Code § 63.2-1509(A)(19)
- Clergy named
- Expressly
- Pending
- —
Virginia added clergy to its mandated-reporter list in 2019. Section 63.2-1509(A)(19) names ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, and duly accredited practitioners of any religious organization. The duty sounds firm on the page. The same subsection then writes two exemptions back in. Clause (i) excuses information the relevant religious organization's doctrine requires to be kept confidential. Clause (ii) preserves communications that would be subject to Va. Code § 8.01-400 (the civil clergy privilege) or § 19.2-271.3 (the criminal counterpart) if offered as evidence in court. The practical effect is a wide carveout. The doctrinal clause turns on what a denomination requires of its clergy, with no procedural burden on the clergyperson to substantiate the claim. The privilege clause imports the full reach of Virginia's evidentiary statutes, which extend beyond the confessional to communications made while a person was 'seeking spiritual counsel and advice.' Any denomination that treats pastoral counseling as confidential can leave its clergy outside the duty. Virginia case law adds a second layer. Under Nestle v. Commonwealth (1996), the clergy-penitent privilege belongs to the clergyperson, not the communicant. A survivor who wants the disclosure to come out cannot force it; the clergy member alone decides whether to invoke the carveout. The federal companion authority, Seidman v. Fishburne-Hudgins (4th Cir. 1984), points the same way. The legislative record confirms the design. The carveout was written to protect the confessional, and the Virginia Catholic Conference, which represents the state's two Catholic dioceses, supported both bills. The bills cleared both chambers unanimously and took effect July 1, 2019. A duty that names clergy and then writes its own way out is the pattern UCO works to close, statehouse by statehouse, until the exception no longer decides whether a child is protected.