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