Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.040 (2026)

Certain privileges not grounds for excluding evidence in court proceedings on child abuse

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      419B.040 Certain privileges not grounds for excluding evidence in court proceedings on child abuse. (1) In the case of abuse of a child, the privileges created in ORS 40.230 to 40.255, including the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the physician-patient privilege, the privileges extended to nurses, to staff members of schools and to regulated social workers and the spousal privilege, shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050.

      (2) In any judicial proceedings resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050, either spouse shall be a competent and compellable witness against the other. [1993 c.546 §21; 2009 c.442 §37; 2015 c.629 §49]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1999–2019 · leading case: State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 13× “ORS 419B.040. We hold that an eyewitness’s account of abuse of the declarant by defendant satisfied the corroboration requirement in OEC 803(18a)(b) for each of the statements attributed to the declarant, because that account tended to strengthen or confirm the act of abuse…”
United States v. Banks, 556 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Act § 1046 (a)(vii) (2007) (eliminating the privilege in proceedings for child abuse or neglect); Ore.Rev.Stat. § 419B.040 ("the husband-wife privilege, shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child's abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding"); 23…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Spencer, 108 P.3d 1189 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “” In support of its motion, the state relied on ORS 419B.040(1) (set out below), arguing that the statute *602 abrogated youth’s otherwise privileged communications to his psychotherapist, OEC 504, where the communications pertained to “a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof.”
State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “Defendant instead relies on a provision in the juvenile dependency laws, ORS 419B.040, and suggests that the *835 records he seeks both are not privileged and are subject to pretrial discovery.”
State v. Riley, 308 P.3d 1080 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “The court ruled that the otherwise-applicable husband-wife privilege, OEC 505, was abrogated in this case by ORS 419B.040(1) — a statute that prohibits the use of that privilege “in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.”
Mathews v. Becerra, 455 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2019). “3 ; Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 419B.040; Wis. Stat.”
Bassine v. Hill, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Or. 2006). · cites it 3× “Inexplicably, the Court of Appeals ignored this portion of Petitioner’s argument, stating “[Petitioner] has not raised ORS 419B.040, which establishes as an exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege in juvenile sex abuse cases for both exculpatory and inculpatory…”
State v. Bassine, 71 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” Thus, while SCF had potential future access to Johnston’s materials, such access was tenuous and could be revoked by S or her guardian at any time.”
State v. Evans, 317 P.3d 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “050 are the statutory provisions that govern the requirements and procedures for mandatory reporting of child abuse.”
State v. Judd, 457 P.3d 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “In support of her argu- ment, defendant points out that the child abuse reporting statute is similarly written, but, under ORS 419B.040(1), it specifically allows evidence of child abuse to be admitted in a judicial proceeding notwithstanding privilege, while the elder abuse…”
State v. Jenkins, 79 P.3d 347 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “2 The state responded that defendant’s threats fell within OEC 503(4)(a), the future crimes exception to the attorney-client privilege, as well as ORS 419B.040, the child abuse exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege.”
Pamplin Media Grp. v. City of Salem, 429 P.3d 1019 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “Moreover, ORS 419B.040 notes the possibility of a "judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.040(1) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Spencer, 108 P.3d 1189 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “” In support of its motion, the state relied on ORS 419B.040(1) (set out below), arguing that the statute *602 abrogated youth’s otherwise privileged communications to his psychotherapist, OEC 504, where the communications pertained to “a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof.”
State v. Riley, 308 P.3d 1080 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “The court ruled that the otherwise-applicable husband-wife privilege, OEC 505, was abrogated in this case by ORS 419B.040(1) — a statute that prohibits the use of that privilege “in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.”
State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “ORS 419B.040. We hold that an eyewitness’s account of abuse of the declarant by defendant satisfied the corroboration requirement in OEC 803(18a)(b) for each of the statements attributed to the declarant, because that account tended to strengthen or confirm the act of abuse…”
Bassine v. Hill, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Or. 2006). “Inexplicably, the Court of Appeals ignored this portion of Petitioner’s argument, stating “[Petitioner] has not raised ORS 419B.040, which establishes as an exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege in juvenile sex abuse cases for both exculpatory and inculpatory…”
State v. Evans, 317 P.3d 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “050 are the statutory provisions that govern the requirements and procedures for mandatory reporting of child abuse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.040(l) — 1 case
State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “ORS 419B.040. We hold that an eyewitness’s account of abuse of the declarant by defendant satisfied the corroboration requirement in OEC 803(18a)(b) for each of the statements attributed to the declarant, because that account tended to strengthen or confirm the act of abuse…”
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.