States can legislate laws that govern child abuse reporting and States can also legislate laws that that qualify cp privilige; cp privilege is a Priviledge and not a Right, Rights are guaranteed, they cannot be revoked, Privlidges can be revoked.Priviliges can be subject to qualification and may be licensed such as the privilege to operare a motor vehicle. Bergers decision states that cp is based on the 1st Amendment, he did not say that cp is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Berger also did not determine that all cp circumstances qualify; they are subject to the purpose of the communication and the role the minister is taking at any instance. Therefore, there is legal grounds to challege cp privilege.
Richard Oliver pointed out that Watchtower cp privilege has not been decided by California Supreme Court, such decision legally establishing a legal precedent in all jurisdictions in the State of California. Lacking such decision, any other California state court decision can only be used as case law in the jurisdiction where the decision was made and subject to acceptance in other jurisdictions. Therefore, the only Precedent that can legally matter statewide affecting wt cp is one from SCOC.
But even if California was to recognize WT cp privilidge, California can still pass laws mandating clergy to report child abuse. And that applies to other states also such as in the Fessler case where wt argues that wt does not have a paid clergy while clergy is being mandated to report child abuse under the related state statute; and whether or not doing so violates Berger's decision, has not been decided by the Courts.
What is interesting is that wt is believed to have subpoenable information, confidential or not, about child abusers, which, has or has not, is or is not, will or will not, affected, affecting or will affect the safety of children.