Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 722 / Act 238 of 1975
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.631 (2026)

Privileged communications.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CHILD PROTECTION LAW


Act 238 of 1975


722.631 Privileged communications.

Sec. 11.

    Any legally recognized privileged communication except that between attorney and client or that made to a member of the clergy in his or her professional character in a confession or similarly confidential communication is abrogated and shall not constitute grounds for excusing a report otherwise required to be made or for excluding evidence in a civil child protective proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to this act. This section does not relieve a member of the clergy from reporting suspected child abuse or child neglect under section 3 if that member of the clergy receives information concerning suspected child abuse or child neglect while acting in any other capacity listed under section 3.

History: 1975, Act 238, Eff. Oct. 1, 1975 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 693, Eff. Mar. 1, 2003

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 8× “238 of the Public Acts of 1975, being section 722.631 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, a confidential communication, or any report, working paper, or statement contained in a report or working paper, given or made in connection with a consultation between a victim and a sexual…”
In Re Brock, 499 N.W.2d 752 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “[MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11).] The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the privilege was not abrogated by § 11.”
People v. Wood, 523 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 4× “The court held that § 11 of the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11), [3] "must be *84 read in the context of other clauses in the act" which mandated that social workers seek the assistance of and cooperate with law enforcement officials "if law enforcement…”
In the Matter of Baby X, 293 N.W.2d 736 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(H). 2 These statutes favoring disclosure are diametrically opposed to drug treatment statutes protective of confidentiality.”
In the Matter of Tedder, 389 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “The next issue we address is whether the trial court erred in ordering appellant’s treating psychologist, Dr.”
People v. Love, 391 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “This necessity is also reflected in the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11), which abrogates all legally recognized privileges except that between attorney and client as grounds for excusing a report of suspected child abuse otherwise required by the act or for…”
In re Blakeman, 926 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “We acknowledge that the trial court did not demand a confession from respondent, but it instead refused to allow respondent an opportunity to return to the family home if he did not admit responsibility for the toddler's injuries to his therapist as part of his services.”
Marcelletti v. Bathani, 500 N.W.2d 124 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “] Although, the Child Protection Law abrogates all legally recognized privileges, except attorney-client, for purposes of reports required to be made, MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11); People v Caviani, 172 Mich App 706 ; 432 NW2d 409 (1988), imposition of a common-law duty would…”
People v. Cavaiani, 432 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Defendant next contends that § 11 of the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11), which abrogates all legally recognized privileged communication except that between attorney and client for purposes of reports required to be made, or the admission of evidence in a…”
In the Matter of Atkins, 316 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “” Neither do we find that the psychologist-patient privilege was waived by MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11), as that section only abrogates the privilege as to evidence introduced in a civil child protective proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to the Child Protection Law.”
Landelius v. Sackellares, 556 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. 1996). “, § 11 of the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.631; MSA 25.248(11), and § 625a(9) of the implied consent statute, MCL 257.”
People v. Prominski, 839 N.W.2d 32 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “MCL 722.631 abrogates privilege with respect to the reporting statute, except for the attorney-client and the clergy-parishioner privileges: Any legally recognized privileged communication except that between attorney and client or that made to a member of the clergy in his or…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.