NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website. The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR:	Taylor		DATE TYPED:	2/06/03		HB	247
SHORT TITLE:		Clergy Members’ Duty to Report Child Abuse				SB
					ANALYST:		Maloy

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained		Estimated Additional Impact		Recurring or Non-Rec	Fund Affected
FY03	FY04	FY03	FY04
			NFI

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

Responses received from

Office of the Attorney General

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

· House Bill 247 adds “members of the clergy” to the list of professionals having a specific duty to report known, or reasonably suspected, child abuse or neglect to local law enforcement, children’s services agencies or Indian services agencies.

· HB 247 also provides, however, that this duty is subject to the limitation that the communication through which the clergy member became aware of the abuse may be privileged as a matter of law.

· HB 247 provides that persons violating their duty under this law are guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be charged and sentenced accordingly.

Significant Issues

• If a member of the clergy learns of, or come to suspect, abuse because of a confidential communication with a member of his congregation, such as Confession, the communication would be privileged and the clergy member would have no duty to report it.

• If a clergy member learns of, or comes to reasonably suspect, abuse occurring within the church (involving a fellow clergy member), the member would have a duty to report the matter. For example, a bishop could no longer ignore complaints regarding a priest for whom he is responsible, particularly if multiple complaints are received. The problem could not be resolved simply by moving the priest to a new parish.

• As part of the FIR process, the Attorney General’s Office made a preliminary assessment of the issues that may be raised if this law were to come under a constitutional / First Amendment attack, and has stated that it believes "the exclusion of information that is privileged as a matter of law may well be sufficient to allow it to survive constitutional attack.”

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

• What if a clergy member learns of, or comes to reasonably suspect, abuse at the hands of a fellow member, but the communication that gives rise to the knowing or suspecting is privileged because the fellow clergy member has shared it as part of a confidential communication, such as the Confession and Absolution process?

• Can a clergy member seek Confession and Absolution from another member, confessing to having abused a child, and the communication be deemed privileged and, thus, not reportable?

• If a child reveals that he or she has been the victim of abuse to a clergy member in the course of a confidential conversation, such as Confession, should that be a privileged communication to which no response is required? Seemingly, a child would not have the same confidentiality expectations as would an adult abuser who is seeking forgiveness or guidance.

SJM/sb:yr