PLH,
I am a Mandatory Reporter too and I came across info regarding clergy persons having to report as well. But in the materials I have read, there is no mention of the word "employed."
Think about this: If they are just "volunteers" and not required to report, then it doesn't seem they would be allowed to hide behind the "privileged" protection law. If they are not considered "clergy" persons, then they would have to testify in court when being subpoena'd. But no, they consider themselves to be "clergy" persons thus protecting them. It seems like it would be difficult for them to turn around and say in child abuse situations that they are not required to report because they are volunteers, when they have already claimed they are clergy persons.
So that being said, the only reason I would think they would not be required to report is if somehow the info is considered "privileged," which is a topic I am unclear and uneducated about.
Anyway, I found this interesting link - someone who wrote a report on Mandatory Reporting.
* http://www.cra-us.org/Crgonlin2/mandate_report.htm
In the report, he quoted the following:
"in 19 states all citizens are required to report incidents of abuse and neglect"
I am not sure which 19 states these are, but I do know the "Mandatory Reporting" law is nationwide, but certain states do protect clergy to some degree. This person goes on to mention Clergy persons required to report (I tried to bold the last sentence, but I don't know if it worked):
"Members of the clergy make up a final category that is often included in reporting laws. Their inclusion leads to a discussion of privileged communication. A number of states have decided that there are certain instances when an individual should not be required to report. The instance most often cited by state laws is information gained by a clergyman or woman during confession or some other confidential communication. Arizona, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington state have all excused clergy members from reporting privileged communications. These states have not, however, excused clergy members from reporting abuse or neglect that they observe while performing their other duties."
It would be interesting to know just what is considered privileged. Alan mentioned something I never thought about. Is a child going to an elder to say that they were abused considered a "confession" to the elder thus making it privileged? What if the elders are required to report this abuse, but before they call Child Prot Svs, they go to the perpetrator and get a confession. Is it now considered privileged?
I believe that elders are not excluded from this Mandatory Reporting law, especially since lawsuits have been brought against elders for not reporting. The following link is about a girl in Texas whose family went numerous times to the elders about the girl's brother abusing her. The elders never reported it and she decided to pursue a lawsuit. I could not find the outcome, but here is a link just mentioning that the girl filed a lawsuit:
* http://www.reporternews.com/texas/church0225.html
As a mandatory reporter, I know that if I fail to report suspected abuse, I could face a civil lawsuit by the abused child, so I try to keep informed. I personally would never trust anyone to do this research for me (as elders trust the borg to do for them).
I don't know if this helps anyone at all - I just wanted to share what I found and what I think on the subject.
