

Yes now let’s keep reading.
Nothing in this subsection (1)(b) shall limit a person’s duty to report under (a) of this subsection.
When any member of the clergy, practitioner, county 26 coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional 27 school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service 28 counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of 29 children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care 30 providers or their employees, employee of the department of social 31 and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit 32 staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills 33 program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children’s ombuds 34 or any volunteer in the ombuds’ office, or host home program has 35 reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or 36 neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to 37 be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040. 38 p
In other words, everyone else also has to report if they find out through privileged information, like a patient talking about abusing/being abused to their doctor, too.
That thing there just makes it so that clergy can’t hide behind their role as supervisors of an organization without making, say, the person running a local red cross or soccer club a mandatory reporter. It is very poorly worded and that is what they will pounce on. But be for real.
Oh they probably will. Especially with this supreme court. Had I made this law I would have specified that anyone covered under (A) cannot get out of their responsibility by citing that they acquired privileged information through a different role. But the damage is done with the wording.