Many of you will remember this case as it has garnered many headlines and we have reported on it before. In 2011 or before, Paul Adams in Cochise County began sexually abusing his children. He confessed his behavior to the LDS church who did not report it to police or Department of Child Safety as state law requires.

They did have him repeat his confession in front of his wife, who also did not report, and held excommunication procedures in 2013. Though he was excommunicated, they did nothing for the safety of the children. In 2017, the police arrested him, and he committed suicide in jail.

In 2021, a civil lawsuit was filed on behalf of the children. The Cochise County court refused to order the LDS church to answer questions or to turn over documents related to his confession. That was appealed to the AZ Supreme Court who sided in 2023 with the LDS Church claiming the clergy privilege protected what was said in a confession to a clergy. Thus the Cochise County court granted summary judgment for the church since they had no duty and dismissed the case.

The children’s lawyers appealed the summary judgment. One argument was that when the wife was called in by the lay bishop to repeat Adams confession, it was not as part of a “confession” which he had already done. Stating it in front of the wife does not automatically mean it’s not privileged; it depends on the circumstances.

In this case, Adams had already confessed to the lay bishop and it was the lay bishop who had asked the wife to come in and hear it hoping she would report. She did not.

In this circumstance, the lay bishop was, in fact, not hearing the confession in the context of spiritual guidance, but observing the statement and thus was required under the state statute to report.

Originally, he refused to confess at the excommunication hearing but then eventually did at the appeal of his ex-communication. That confession was not for spiritual guidance but to avoid ex-communication. The hearing panel was composed of clergy and non-clergy, and the privilege does not apply to non-clergy. Thus the non-clergy members were obligated to report… but did not.

The church has a policy that if there is serious injury, the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality. Leaders should contact civil authorities immediately.

Though LDS leaders knew the child abuse was going on for years, they violated their own policy and failed to protect the children from serious injury. They had a duty to report and nothing the church doctrine prohibited it.

Thus the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, on July 29, 2025 threw out the summary judgment by the Cochise County Superior Court because there is a question of fact whether the statements were under confessional protection or not. The decision is not for publication, i.e. not for precedent, and was reversed and remanded for proceedings in the Cochise County court.

The attorneys in the case deserve kudos for carrying on this battle: Lynne Cadigan, Tucson; John Manly, Irvine, CA; John Trebon, Flagstaff; William Maldeon, Scott Rodgers, and Joseph Roth, Phoenix. With the case in Washington state against the revocation of the clergy privilege, we will continue to follow this issue.

Dianne Post

Legal Director

August 15, 2025