Florida Court Reverses Convictions, Concluding That Clergy Communications Privilege Applies to Religious Family Counseling

§ 90.505(2) of the Florida Statutes provides that

A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in his or her capacity as spiritual adviser.

So, does this clergy communications privilege apply in the context of religious family counseling? That was the question addressed by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, in its opinion yesterday in Castano v. State, 2025 WL 1386382 (Fla. App. 3d 2025).

In Castano, Lakhi Dadlani, a pastor and certified counselor at Hope 4 Life,

testified that he met Castano when he came to Hope 4 Life in 2018 or 2019. Castano sought spiritual and pastoral counseling for his family. In May or June 2021, Castano called him and asked him to meet at his son’s football practice so that they could talk. There, Castano told Dadlani that he had sexual encounters with his daughter and that his wife wanted a divorce. Dadlani believed that Castano told him this information in the hopes he would speak with his wife and daughter and help restore their family. Dadlani subsequently contacted Castano’s wife. Castano’s wife confirmed the abuse and stressed that the family did not want to talk about this with others.

On appeal of his convictions for sexual abuse, Castano claimed that this testimony was admitted in violation of the clergy communications privilege.

In granting this appeal, the court concluded as follows:

While several Florida cases address the presence of third parties, none involve family counseling….Indeed, the mere presence of another person by itself does not automatically negate the privilege. The text of the statute provides for the inclusion of some third parties in the communication: “except to other persons present in furtherance of the communication.”…

Instead, we focus on whether the presence of the third person was essential to the furtherance of that communication or under circumstances where confidentiality was expected….The context in which the statements are made is critical to this determination. Castano engaged Dadlani for family counseling. Even Dadlani thought the subject communication was so that he could help restore their family and save their marriage. Any request or implication for Dadlani to contact the wife was in this context.

Under these specific facts, we find that the inclusion of the wife in this communication was in furtherance of the family counseling. The disclosure was simply to another person within that sphere of privilege. As an integral member of that family unit, the wife was a necessary and essential participant in that communication. The record demonstrates that Castano had an expectation of privacy of the communications outside of the confines of his family and it was not intended for further disclosure. Indeed, Castano’s wife stressed that the family did not wish to discuss it with others….Equally, there is no evidence that Dadlani ever told Castano that the statements would not be kept confidential….Accordingly, the statements are subject to the clergy communication privilege.

-CM