AB 1739 creates a statutory offense for sexual relations or sexual contact between certain helping professionals (physicians and surgeons, psychotherapists, research or student psychoanalysts, alcohol and drug abuse counselors) and their current or former patients or clients, and extends parallel prohibitions to members of the clergy who provide therapeutic services. The bill treats consent as immaterial, establishes a narrow safe‑harbor when the provider refers the patient to an independent provider recommended by a third party, and bars seeking other patients’ confidential files during investigations.
The measure lays out tiered punishments — misdemeanor‑level jail and fines for single acts without prior convictions, and aggravated prison terms and larger fines for multiple victims or prior convictions — and includes carve‑outs (spousal medical treatment, partnership non‑liability) and clarifying language intended to limit application of sex‑offender registration to clergy in defined circumstances. For compliance officers, prosecutors, and professional boards, the bill creates new criminal exposure and evidence‑handling constraints that will change how complaints against providers and clergy are investigated and charged.
At a Glance
What It Does
Makes it a criminal offense for specified clinicians and clergy who provide therapeutic services to engage in sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual contact with current or former patients, clients, or congregants when the professional terminated the relationship primarily to engage in those acts; provides a narrow referral exception and tiers penalties by victim count and prior convictions.
Who It Affects
Licensed and unlicensed providers who deliver psychotherapy or similar therapeutic services (physicians, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, alcohol and drug counselors), members of the clergy who provide therapeutic services, patients and congregants, licensing boards, prosecutors, and religious organizations that employ or supervise clergy.
Why It Matters
The bill converts a subset of provider–patient sexual relationships into explicit criminal conduct with specified penalties, removes consent as a defense, and imposes investigatory and evidentiary limits; that combination raises new compliance, evidentiary, and interagency coordination questions for health regulators, faith institutions, and law enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1739 creates a standalone criminal offense for sexual exploitation by certain helping professionals and by clergy who provide therapeutic services. The statute lists the acts covered (sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual contact) and targets situations where the clinician or clergy member ended the professional relationship primarily to pursue those sexual acts.
Significantly, the bill says that a patient’s consent does not excuse the conduct and clarifies that routine medical touching during legitimate medical examination or treatment is not criminal unless it is outside the scope of treatment or done for sexual gratification.
The text builds in a narrow exception: a practitioner avoids criminal liability if they referred the patient, client, or congregant to an independent, objective licensed professional or qualified therapeutic provider who was recommended by a third party. The bill does not define the full contours of “independent and objective” or what qualifications the third‑party recommender must have, so the referral safe‑harbor will depend heavily on enforcement and later interpretive guidance.Penalties are tiered.
A single act without prior sexual‑exploitation convictions is treated as a public offense punishable by county jail up to six months, a fine up to $1,000, or both; multiple victims or prior convictions escalate exposure to state prison terms under Penal Code 1170(h) (16 months, 2 or 3 years) and fines up to $10,000. The statute also bars prosecutors or investigators from seeking disclosure of other patients’ confidential files during investigations, carves out non‑psychotherapeutic spousal medical treatment, and prevents colleagues in the same partnership from being disciplined solely because another partner committed the offense.For clergy, the bill adds a specific two‑year window: a member of the clergy who provides therapeutic services and who engages in sexual acts with a current or former congregant within two years of terminating therapeutic services — where termination was primarily to pursue those acts — is guilty.
The statute limits the phrase “member of the congregation” to contexts where the clergy member was offering therapeutic services and includes legislative intent language to avoid unintentionally applying sex‑offender‑registration provisions to ordained clergy doing psychological work so long as they do not present themselves as licensed psychologists.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute makes consent immaterial: a patient, client, or congregant’s consent is not a defense to the offense.
A narrow referral safe‑harbor exists if the provider referred the person to an independent, objective licensed or qualified therapeutic provider recommended by a third party; the bill does not define who qualifies as independent or as a valid third‑party recommender.
Penalties start at misdemeanor‑level exposure (up to six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine) for single acts with no prior conviction, and escalate to state prison terms (16 months, 2 or 3 years) and fines up to $10,000 for multiple victims or repeat offenders under Penal Code 1170(h).
For clergy providing therapeutic services, the bill creates a two‑year post‑termination rule: sexual contact occurring within two years after termination — when termination was primarily to enable the contact — is criminalized.
Investigators are prohibited from seeking disclosure of other current or former patients’, clients’, or congregants’ confidential files of the accused provider during investigations under this section.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Provider sexual‑contact offense for healthcare and counseling professionals
Defines the core offense for physicians and surgeons, psychotherapists, research and student psychoanalysts, alcohol and drug abuse counselors, and persons holding themselves out as those professionals: engaging in specified sexual acts with a current or former patient or client when the professional ended the relationship primarily to engage in those acts. Practically, this creates criminal exposure for conduct that may also be the basis for licensing sanctions and civil claims, and it shifts some misconduct from administrative discipline into the criminal domain.
Clergy sexual‑contact offense with two‑year post‑termination rule
Creates a parallel offense for members of the clergy who provide therapeutic services: sexual acts with a current or former patient, client, or congregant within two years following termination of therapeutic services when the termination was primarily to permit the sexual contact. This provision narrows the clergy rule to contexts where the clergy provided therapeutic services as defined, rather than to all clergy–member relationships.
Tiered criminal penalties and fines
Establishes that violations are public offenses and sets graduated punishments: misdemeanor exposure (county jail up to six months and up to $1,000 fine) for single acts without prior convictions; elevated state‑prison terms and fines up to $10,000 when there are multiple victims or prior convictions under Penal Code 1170(h). The structure forces prosecutors to classify offenses by victim count and criminal history, which will affect charging strategies and plea negotiations.
Key definitions and scope of ‘therapeutic services’ and ‘member of the congregation’
Provides statutory definitions: who counts as an alcohol and drug abuse counselor, what counts as sexual contact (referencing Penal Code §243.4), who qualifies as a member of the clergy and member of the congregation, and a working definition of therapeutic services that covers counseling, spiritual counseling treating emotional/behavioral conditions, and services substantially similar to psychotherapy whether or not state‑licensed. These definitions expand the statute’s reach to unlicensed clergy and counselors who deliver therapy‑like services.
Investigatory limits, exclusions, partnership carve‑outs, and registration intent language
Bars seeking disclosure of other patients’ confidential files during investigations; excludes consensual spousal non‑psychotherapeutic medical treatment; prevents disciplining other partners in a professional group solely because a colleague committed the offense; and includes a consistency clause with Section 2908 to avoid applying Chapter 6.6 (sex‑offender registration) to duly ordained clergy doing psychological work so long as they do not imply they are licensed. Each clause creates operational rules — for evidence handling, employer policies, and coordination with sex‑offender registration and licensing regimes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Patients, clients, and congregants who receive therapeutic services — gain explicit criminal protection and a statutory rule that consent is not a defense, which may deter exploitative conduct and simplify criminal charging decisions.
- Survivor‑advocacy organizations and victim services — receive clearer statutory grounds to push for criminal investigations and to argue for tiered penalties in more serious cases.
- Regulatory and licensing boards — get a parallel criminal framework that can support disciplinary actions and provide prosecutors with a statutory hook for conduct that might otherwise be enforced only administratively.
Who Bears the Cost
- Clinicians and counselors (licensed and those who 'hold themselves out') — face new criminal exposure for post‑treatment sexual relationships and must reassess referral practices, documentation, and training to avoid liability.
- Members of the clergy and religious organizations that provide counseling — the two‑year rule and expanded definition of therapeutic services will require policy changes, supervision protocols, and potential legal defense costs for clergy who provide pastoral counseling.
- Prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts — will absorb additional caseload complexity and evidentiary disputes, particularly over intent (whether the relationship was terminated primarily to have sex), the adequacy of referrals, and the application of the confidentiality bar to evidentiary gathering.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting vulnerable therapy recipients by criminalizing provider–patient sexual contact and preserving clarity, fairness, and enforceability: the law aims to remove the defense of consent and deter exploitation, but it relies on subjective intent standards, under‑specified referral exceptions, and investigatory limits that can both hinder prosecutions and create gaps in accountability (especially for clergy), forcing policymakers to choose between broader protection and practical enforceability.
The bill solves a clear problem — sex by providers who exploit power differentials — but it also creates practical and legal uncertainties. The standard that the professional terminated the relationship “primarily for the purpose of engaging in those acts” will be fact‑intensive and hard to prove; proving subjective motivation may require circumstantial evidence (timing, prior conduct, communications) and will likely generate pretrial disputes.
The referral safe‑harbor is operationally attractive but under‑defined: courts and agencies will need to decide who qualifies as an independent, objective provider, what constitutes a valid third‑party recommendation, and whether documentation of the referral suffices to defeat criminal charges.
The confidentiality prohibition that prevents seeking other patients’ files is well‑intentioned to protect privacy, but it risks impeding investigations when corroborating records reside in a provider’s broader case files. Prosecutors will have to develop alternative evidence strategies (witnesses, admissions, contemporaneous notes) or seek narrowly tailored court orders.
The statute’s partnership carve‑out reduces collateral discipline risk for colleagues, but it may complicate employer liability and victims’ access to remedies. Finally, the Section 2908 consistency clause — intended to prevent automatic sex‑offender registration for ordained clergy doing psychological work — raises public‑safety questions if serious sexual exploitation by clergy does not trigger registration; reconciliation between criminal penalties, licensing sanctions, and community notification rules will require careful statutory and policy work.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.