Privilege communications are generally excluded from admissible evidence and those individuals who receive such privilege communications are exempt from being forced to testify in trials or otherwise give evidence. There are arguments that at least in some cases, such privilege should not be allowed.
However, the state of Washington’s approach is now to affirm that privilege… with the explicitly called out exception of members of the clergy. HB 5375 explicitly excluded clergy from the allowance given to privileged communications. The law was amended to, in part, read, with deleted text in strikeout text and new text underlined:
“((No)) Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be 11 required to report under this section when he or she obtains the 12 information solely as a result of a privileged communication as 13 provided in RCW 5.60.060.”
They were further explicitly added to the limited list of mandated reporters:
“(1)(a) When any member of the clergy, practitioner, county 25 coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional 26 school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service 27 counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of 28 children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care 29 providers or their employees, employee of the department of social 30 and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit 31 staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills 32 program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children’s ombuds 33 or any volunteer in the ombuds’ office, or host home program has 34 reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or 35 neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to 36 be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as 37 provided in RCW 26.44.040.”
If this were a more general revision, then whether such revision were inclusive regardless of religious elements, that’s be a different discussion. But this is specifically targeting people based on religion.
And no, being inclusive of all religions does not cut it as an excuse:
“‘Member of the clergy’ means any regularly licensed, 27 accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or 28 similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, 29 religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, 30 or person performing official duties that are recognized as the 31 duties of a member of the clergy under the discipline, tenets, 32 doctrine, or custom of the person’s church, religious denomination, 33 religious body, spiritual community, or sect, whether acting in an 34 individual capacity or as an employee, agent, or official of any 35 public or private organization or institution.”
This has already been passed and signed into law.
Time, now, for the lawyers to sue.
The full bill as signed into law can be read here, or below:
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 06.04.25 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain