The Family Room – May 13, 2026 Episode:
“Wait, That’s Weird! with Anna Sonoda – Show Notes
50-STATE COMPARATIVE TABLE: GROOMING / ENTICEMENT STATUTES
LEGEND (How to read this table)
- EXPLICIT GROOMING CRIME = statute literally labeled “grooming”
- ENTICEMENT / LURING STATUTE = grooming covered indirectly (most states)
- PATTERN-OF-CONDUCT GROOMING = modern expanded definition includes trust-building behavior
- NO EXPLICIT GROOMING STATUTE = grooming not named, only inferred via other crime
50-STATE COMPARATIVE TABLE: GROOMING / ENTICEMENT STATUTES
State |
Explicit “Grooming” Statute? |
Enticement / Luring Law |
Pattern-of-Conduct Grooming Language |
Legal Structure Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama |
No |
Yes |
No |
Felony online enticement / solicitation |
Alaska |
No |
Yes |
No |
Internet enticement + sexual abuse statutes |
Arizona |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Felony luring / child exploitation |
Arkansas |
No |
Yes |
No |
Child solicitation + attempted sexual assault |
California |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Online enticement + attempted lewd acts |
Colorado |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticement of a child felony offense (Colorado.Public.Law) |
Connecticut |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Enticing / injury to minors statutes |
Delaware |
No |
Yes |
No |
Unlawful sexual contact + enticement |
Florida |
No |
Yes |
No |
Online solicitation of minors (felony) |
Georgia |
No |
Yes |
No |
Computer child exploitation + solicitation |
Hawaii |
No |
Yes |
No |
Electronic enticement statutes |
Idaho |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticing a child via communication |
Illinois |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Indecent solicitation of a child |
Indiana |
No |
Yes |
No |
Child solicitation + enticement felony |
Iowa |
No |
Yes |
No |
Sexual exploitation + enticement laws |
Kansas |
No |
Yes |
No |
Electronic solicitation statutes |
Kentucky |
No |
Yes |
No |
Unlawful transaction with minor |
Louisiana |
No |
Yes |
No |
Computer-aided solicitation laws |
Maine |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticing minors for sexual conduct |
Maryland |
No |
Yes |
No |
Online solicitation + exploitation statutes |
Massachusetts |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticement of child under 16 felony |
Michigan |
No |
Yes |
No |
Child enticement + accosting statutes |
Minnesota |
No |
Yes |
No |
Solicitation of children via internet |
Mississippi |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticement + sexual exploitation crimes |
Missouri |
No |
Yes |
No |
Child enticement felony statutes |
Montana |
No |
Yes |
No |
Sexual abuse + enticement laws |
Nebraska |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Explicit “enticement by electronic communication” felony (Nebraska Legislature) |
Nevada |
No |
Yes |
No |
Luring children statutes |
New Hampshire |
No |
Yes |
No |
Online solicitation / enticement |
New Jersey |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Sexual misconduct with minors framework |
New Mexico |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticement of children statutes |
New York |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Luring a child / internet sex crimes |
North Carolina |
No |
Yes |
No |
Indecent liberties + enticement |
North Dakota |
No |
Yes |
No |
Online solicitation laws |
Ohio |
YES (explicit) |
Yes |
YES (pattern-based) |
Codified “Grooming” felony statute (Ohio Laws) |
Oklahoma |
No |
Yes |
No |
Solicitation / exploitation statutes |
Oregon |
No |
Yes |
No |
Online sexual corruption of minors |
Pennsylvania |
No |
Yes |
No |
Unlawful contact with minors |
Rhode Island |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticement + exploitation statutes |
South Carolina |
No |
Yes |
No |
Criminal solicitation of minors |
South Dakota |
No |
Yes |
No |
Internet crimes against children |
Tennessee |
No |
Yes |
No |
Solicitation of minors felony |
Texas |
No |
Yes |
No |
Online solicitation of a minor felony |
Utah |
No |
Yes |
No |
Electronic enticement felony statute (FindLaw) |
Vermont |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
“Luring a child” statute (Vermont General Assembly) |
Virginia |
No |
Yes |
No |
Use of communications to solicit minors |
Washington |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Sexual misconduct / exploitation statutes |
West Virginia |
No |
Yes |
No |
Solicitation + abuse statutes |
Wisconsin |
No |
Yes |
No |
Child enticement + computer crimes |
Wyoming |
No |
Yes |
No |
Enticement / sexual exploitation laws |
District of Columbia |
No |
Yes |
Limited |
Enticement / child sexual abuse laws |
KEY FINDINGS (IMPORTANT PATTERN ANALYSIS)
Only ONE state explicitly codifies “grooming” as a named crime
• Ohio is the only state with a statute literally titled and defined as “Grooming”
• It criminalizes a pattern of conduct intended to prepare or entice a minor for sexual activity (Ohio Laws)
EVERY state criminalizes grooming behavior indirectly. All 50 states + DC prosecute grooming conduct through:
• enticement statutes
• solicitation laws
• attempted sexual abuse
• computer/online predator laws
This aligns with federal treatment of grooming as part of enticement and exploitation offenses rather than a standalone crime (LegalClarity)
“Pattern of conduct grooming laws” are rare but emerging. Only a small subset of states explicitly include:
• repeated contact
• trust-building behavior
• preparatory sexual conditioning
Ohio is the clearest model; a few others partially approximate it (NJ, VT, WA concepts in institutional misconduct laws).
Majority model (≈45+ states). Most states rely on:
• “luring”
• “enticement”
• “solicitation”
• “unlawful sexual communication”
rather than the word “grooming.”
Legal trend (2023–2026 direction). Across jurisdictions:
• expansion of online enticement statutes
• increased recognition of pattern-based grooming behavior
• movement toward explicit codification (still rare but growing) (Contentful)
WHAT THIS MEANS LEGALLY. Across the U.S. legal system:
• Grooming is treated as a behavioral construct, not a uniform crime
• The enforceable legal trigger is almost always: intent + communication + step toward sexual exploitation
• The dominant enforcement tool remains felony enticement statutes