## Facts

- A 17-year-old student at a private religious school reported to a teacher that her stepfather had sexually molested her for years.
- The teacher informed the school president/pastor, who met with the student; she asked that her stepfather not be told, but the president said he had to be confronted.
- The president told the student not to tell anyone and said he would handle the matter.
- The president confronted the stepfather, had him write an apology letter, and sought an apology to the congregation; the principal/assistant pastor participated in handling the matter internally.
- Over the student’s objection, the president convened a meeting with the student and her parents, including the stepfather; despite her fear of returning home, he told her to go home with them, after which she ran away.
- When she attempted to return to school, the president told her she could not attend or graduate unless she returned home.
- Neither the president nor the principal reported the suspected abuse to authorities.
- Both were charged and convicted for willful failure to report suspected child abuse under California’s Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA), based on their alleged status as “child care custodians.”

## Issues

1. Whether a pastor/school president and a principal/assistant pastor at a private religious school are “child care custodians” required to report suspected child abuse under CANRA.
2. Whether applying CANRA’s reporting duty to these defendants, as clergy and religious-school officials, violates the Free Exercise Clause or Establishment Clause.

## Decision

- The appellate department affirmed both convictions.
- The court held the defendants qualified as “child care custodians” because their positions carried responsibility for the care and supervision of students at the school.
- The court held CANRA, as applied, did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because it is a neutral, generally applicable law serving the state’s interest in child protection.
- The court held CANRA, as applied, did not violate the Establishment Clause because it neither targets religion nor requires doctrinal evaluation; any church-state involvement is limited to enforcing a general reporting requirement.
- The defendants’ internal handling of the allegations (confrontation and religious discipline) did not satisfy the statutory duty to report.

## Legal Principles

- Mandatory reporting statutes may apply to religious-school officials when their institutional duties include care or supervision of children, bringing them within “child care custodian” definitions.
- A neutral, generally applicable child-abuse reporting requirement may constitutionally burden religious practice incidentally when directed at protecting children and not regulating religious belief.
- Imposing a reporting duty on clergy in a school-administrative role does not, by itself, create unconstitutional establishment concerns when the law applies broadly and does not require interpretation of religious doctrine.
- Private or internal responses to credible abuse allegations do not substitute for a statutory duty to notify governmental authorities when the reporter has knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed convictions for failure to report suspected child abuse, ruling that religious-school administrators with supervisory responsibility for students are mandatory reporters under CANRA and that enforcing this duty against them does not violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses.


People v. Hodges, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (Cal. Super. Ct. App. Dep’t 1992)