Opinion ID: 1857261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Claim Against Father Kottas.

Text: Plaintiff's argument of this claim is based on the contention that Father Kottas failed to report to proper authorities a child abuse situation involving plaintiff and her father. There is no claim that Father Kottas had been made aware of any sexual abuse involving those persons. Plaintiff urges, however, that Father Kottas should have been aware of past physical abuse based on her statement to him that her father had hurt her. The district court did not decide this issue on the extent of Father Kottas's knowledge but, rather, dismissed the claim against him on the basis he had no duty to report child abuse even if he suspected it. The record presented on the summary judgment motion reflects that Father Kottas met with the Wilson family on several occasions for purposes of assisting them in their familial relationship. It appears, however, that his role in these discussions was that of a clergyman counseling the family to work out their differences in accordance with the teachings of the church. We agree with the conclusions of the district court that this involvement in the Wilsons' familial conflicts did not render him a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse under the requirements of Iowa Code section 232.69 (1989). To the extent that subpart (1) of that statute makes a counselor a mandatory reporter of child abuse, this is limited to a reasonable belief actually formed by the counselor in the scope of professional practice. Father Kottas's professional practice, as it related to the Wilson family, was that of clergyman. In State v. Motherwell, 114 Wash.2d 353, 788 P.2d 1066 (1990), the court held that members of the clergy counseling their parishioners in the religious context were not mandatory reporters under that state's statute. The legislature did not include members of the clergy among those that are required to report child abuse under section 232.69. Because it is common knowledge that clergymen engage in activities within a religious context that might unearth abusive situations, that omission must be deemed to have been a conscious choice to exclude this profession from the reporting requirements of the statute. The district court was correct in concluding that Father Kottas had no statutory duty to report child abuse visited upon plaintiff. Plaintiff does not suggest that he had a common-law duty to report such matters. Consequently, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Father Kottas will not be disturbed.