Tennessee created a new criminal offense of grooming a minor effective July 1, 2026. Under the Tennessee Anti-Grooming Act, a grooming charge requires more than an adult having contact, conversations, or a relationship with a minor. The law requires a course of grooming conduct combined with a specific prohibited intent.
A course of grooming conduct requires a pattern of at least two qualifying predicate acts directed at the same minor that shows continuity of purpose. Depending on the minor’s age, the nature of the alleged conduct, and whether the accused occupied a position of authority or special trust, the offense can range from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B felony.
The new offense is codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-536. It was enacted through Public Chapter 1021 and applies to acts committed on or after July 1, 2026.
For someone accused of this offense, the details matter. Tennessee law identifies categories of conduct that can form the basis of a grooming charge, requires proof of specific intent, and expressly protects several forms of legitimate adult-minor interaction.
Anyone facing allegations involving grooming or another sexual offense can learn more about Tennessee sex crime defense.
What Is Grooming a Minor Under Tennessee Law?
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-536 creates two related offenses: grooming a minor and grooming a minor while in a position of trust.
For the first offense, the prosecution must prove that the accused engaged in a course of grooming conduct directed at a minor with the specific intent to:
- commit, or facilitate another person’s commission of, a sexual offense or violent sexual offense against the minor; or
- cause or induce the minor to engage in simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive or sexual activity.
The statute also establishes specific age requirements.
The general grooming offense applies when the minor is under 13 and the accused is 18 or older, or when the minor is at least 13 but under 18 and the accused is at least 10 years older than the minor.
Different requirements apply to the separate position-of-trust offense discussed below.
Tennessee Requires a “Course of Grooming Conduct”
One of the central requirements of the new law is that the prosecution establish a course of grooming conduct.
The statute defines this as a pattern involving two or more predicate acts directed at the same minor that evidence continuity of purpose.
In determining whether such a course of conduct exists, the factfinder may consider the frequency, escalation, and combination of the alleged acts. The predicate acts do not have to fall within the same category, and they do not have to occur in a particular order.
This distinction matters.
A single alleged predicate act does not, by itself, satisfy the statutory definition of a course of grooming conduct. The prosecution must prove the required pattern along with the other elements of § 39-13-536, including the required specific intent.
What Conduct Can Be Used to Establish Grooming?
Tennessee’s new law identifies five categories of predicate acts that may form part of an alleged course of grooming conduct.
Access and Isolation Conduct
This category addresses conduct involving the physical or psychological isolation of a minor from a parent, guardian, or other supervising adult.
The statute addresses conduct such as seeking unsupervised access to a minor through deception or misrepresentation or encouraging the minor to conceal interactions from a parent or guardian.
The existence of private interaction alone does not establish the offense. The alleged conduct must satisfy the statutory requirements and be accompanied by the required specific intent.
Secrecy Cultivation
The statute also addresses efforts to create secrecy around the relationship or interactions with the minor.
This can include encouraging or inducing the minor to keep communications, gifts, activities, or physical contact secret. The statute also addresses warnings that disclosure would result in harm to the minor or another person.
Again, these allegations must be considered as part of the course of conduct and intent required by the statute.
Dependency-Building
Giving a child a gift does not, standing alone, establish criminal grooming.
The statute addresses providing gifts, money, special privileges, or other material benefits under circumstances that a reasonable person would recognize as designed to establish emotional dependency, obligation, or special loyalty toward the accused and that are inconsistent with the accused’s legitimate relationship with the minor.
Context can therefore become important when the accused has a legitimate family, educational, professional, mentoring, athletic, religious, or caregiving relationship with the child.
Physical Boundary Violations
The statute also identifies physical contact that violates age-appropriate and role-appropriate boundaries.
The law addresses conduct including touching intimate parts under the guise of innocent or incidental contact, exposing intimate parts to the minor, and progressive physical contact intended to normalize or desensitize the minor to sexual touching.
This category has additional legal significance because a qualifying physical-boundary predicate act can increase the classification of the grooming offense.
Sexual Content Introduction
Another category concerns the introduction of sexual topics, sexual humor, sexual language, or descriptions of sexual activity into communications with a minor under circumstances covered by the statute.
As with physical boundary violations, qualifying sexual-content conduct can increase the classification of the offense.
Specific Intent Is Required
Tennessee’s Anti-Grooming Act does not make every questionable, inappropriate, or poorly judged interaction between an adult and a minor a violation of § 39-13-536.
The statute requires specific intent.
For the general grooming offense, the prosecution must prove that the course of conduct was undertaken with the specific intent to commit or facilitate another person’s commission of a sexual offense or violent sexual offense against the minor, or to cause or induce the minor to engage in the sexual conduct identified by the statute.
This requirement is significant because individual behaviors that could be characterized as grooming may also occur during lawful adult-minor relationships.
The Act’s legislative findings recognize this concern and explain the importance of distinguishing preparatory grooming conduct from normal adult-child interactions.
In a criminal case, the prosecution remains responsible for proving every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
What Are the Penalties for Grooming a Minor in Tennessee?
The classification of the general grooming offense depends on the minor’s age and whether particular predicate acts are involved.
The base grooming offense is a Class A misdemeanor.
If the course of grooming conduct includes a qualifying physical boundary violation or sexual content introduction, the offense is a Class D felony.
If the minor is under 13, the offense is a Class C felony.
If the minor is under 13 and the course of grooming conduct includes a qualifying physical boundary violation or sexual content introduction, the offense is a Class B felony.
Under Tennessee’s felony classification statutes, a Class D felony carries an authorized term of two to 12 years, a Class C felony three to 15 years, and a Class B felony eight to 30 years. The sentencing range applicable to an individual defendant depends on Tennessee sentencing law and the circumstances of the case.
A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days of confinement. Tennessee law also authorizes fines for these offense classifications.
Grooming a Minor While in a Position of Trust
Tennessee created a separate form of the offense for people who occupy qualifying positions of authority or special trust.
Under § 39-13-536(c), the prosecution must establish that the accused occupied a position of authority or position of special trust with respect to a minor under 18, was at least four years older than the minor, and engaged in a course of grooming conduct directed at the minor with the specific intent required by that subsection.
The statute addresses positions involving supervisory, disciplinary, custodial, or evaluative power over a minor because of a person’s legal, professional, occupational, or organizational status.
It identifies examples that include teachers, coaches, tutors, employers, clergy members, and youth-program leaders.
The statute also addresses positions of special trust in which a minor has been entrusted to a person’s care, supervision, or guidance and reasonably relies on that person for guidance, safety, or support. Examples identified by the law include babysitters, family friends, mentors, and counselors.
Being a teacher, coach, mentor, clergy member, family friend, babysitter, or another trusted adult does not by itself establish grooming.
The prosecution must still prove the course of grooming conduct and the specific intent required by § 39-13-536(c).
What Are the Penalties for Grooming While in a Position of Trust?
The position-of-trust offense begins at the felony level.
The base offense is a Class D felony.
If the course of grooming conduct includes a qualifying physical boundary violation or sexual content introduction, the offense is a Class C felony.
The offense is also a Class C felony when the minor is under 13.
If the minor is under 13 and the course of grooming conduct includes at least one qualifying physical-boundary or sexual-content predicate act, the offense is a Class B felony.
The age difference is also different from the general grooming offense. The position-of-trust provision requires the accused to be at least four years older than the minor.
What Legitimate Conduct Does the Law Protect?
Tennessee lawmakers included specific protections because lawful relationships between adults and minors can involve sensitive conversations, physical contact, supervision, healthcare, education, or caregiving.
The statute does not prohibit qualifying educational instruction concerning human sexuality, sexual health, or sexually transmitted diseases that complies with Tennessee law and applicable educational standards.
It also protects diagnosis, examination, and treatment by licensed healthcare providers acting within the scope of professional practice.
Other protected circumstances identified in the statute include lawful investigations concerning dependency, neglect, or abuse; certain age-appropriate conversations about puberty, sexuality, or personal safety by a parent, guardian, or sibling; appropriate physical contact connected to legitimate professional, educational, athletic, or caregiving roles; and conduct by law enforcement or a person acting at an officer’s direction during a lawful investigation or undercover operation.
The statute also makes another important point:
A close personal, mentoring, educational, or religious relationship between an adult and a minor does not, without more, constitute evidence of grooming conduct or grooming intent.
The existence of the relationship alone therefore does not establish the crime.
Does Sexual Contact Have to Occur?
No.
The new offense addresses preparatory conduct, and the statute expressly provides that it is not a defense that no sexual contact or sexual offense was completed.
The statute also provides that it is not a defense that the minor assented to or was unaware of the grooming conduct, consented to a predicate act, or misrepresented the minor’s age.
That does not eliminate the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Even when no sexual contact occurred, the state must prove the required course of grooming conduct, the applicable age requirements, specific intent, and every other element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
How Is Grooming Different From Solicitation of a Minor?
Tennessee’s new grooming statute is designed to address certain preparatory conduct without simply replacing the criminal statutes that already address solicitation and sexual exploitation.
Section 39-13-536 states that it is intended to address preparatory grooming conduct that does not constitute a completed offense under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-528, 39-13-529, 39-17-1003, 39-17-1004, or 39-17-1005.
The statute does not prohibit prosecution under another applicable provision of law.
It separately provides that a person cannot be convicted of both grooming and a violation of § 39-13-528 or § 39-13-529 arising from the same course of conduct. In that situation, prosecution must proceed under the higher-grade offense.
The distinction between preparatory grooming conduct and another completed offense can therefore become important when multiple criminal allegations arise from the same communications or course of conduct.
Is Grooming Covered by Tennessee’s Sex Offender Registry Law?
Yes.
Public Chapter 1021 amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202(31), which defines “sexual offense” for purposes of Tennessee’s Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act, to include grooming under § 39-13-536.
The consequences of a conviction can therefore extend beyond the criminal sentence itself.
Registration obligations and restrictions are governed by Tennessee’s sex offender registration statutes. The requirements applicable to an individual should be evaluated under the registration law applicable to the conviction.
More information about these consequences is available on our Tennessee Sex Offender Registry page.
What Evidence Could Matter in a Grooming Case?
Because the statute requires a course of conduct rather than one predicate act, the context and history of the alleged interactions can become important.
Depending on the allegations, evidence may include text messages, direct messages, social-media communications, photographs, call records, gifts, financial records, witness accounts, or information concerning meetings and interactions between the accused and the minor.
The existence of a communication, gift, meeting, or relationship is not itself proof that criminal grooming occurred.
A defense analysis may need to examine whether there were actually two or more statutory predicate acts, whether the acts were directed at the same minor, whether they show the required continuity of purpose, whether the alleged conduct falls within the statutory definitions, whether a legitimate explanation exists, whether the age requirements are satisfied, and whether the evidence establishes the specific intent required by § 39-13-536.
For a position-of-trust charge, the nature of the relationship also matters. The prosecution must establish the statutory requirements for a position of authority or special trust in addition to the remaining elements of the offense.
When Did Tennessee’s Anti-Grooming Act Take Effect?
The Tennessee Anti-Grooming Act took effect July 1, 2026, and applies to acts committed on or after that date.
The enacted version is important because HB 2317 changed substantially during the legislative process.
The original version of the bill contained different provisions. House Amendment 1 replaced the original substantive language and created the framework that became law.
The House passed the amended legislation on April 22, 2026. The Senate passed it on April 23. Governor Bill Lee signed the legislation on May 19, and it became Public Chapter 1021 on May 26, 2026.
For that reason, discussions of the original version of HB 2317 may not accurately describe the law that took effect on July 1.
Accused of Grooming a Minor in Tennessee?
A grooming allegation can involve a series of communications or interactions rather than one isolated event. But an accusation still must be measured against the elements Tennessee enacted in § 39-13-536.
Contact with a minor does not by itself establish grooming. Neither does a mentoring, educational, religious, athletic, professional, caregiving, or other legitimate relationship.
The prosecution must prove the statutory course of grooming conduct, the applicable age requirements, the required specific intent, and every other element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Someone who learns that law enforcement is investigating alleged communications or conduct involving a minor should be cautious about making statements, deleting communications, contacting potential witnesses, or attempting to resolve the accusation directly with the minor or the minor’s family. Preserving potential evidence and obtaining legal advice can be important when allegations involve digital communications and a claimed course of conduct.
Davis & Hoss represents people facing serious criminal allegations in Tennessee. Learn more about our Tennessee criminal defense services or contact the firm to discuss the circumstances surrounding an investigation or criminal charge.
Frequently Asked Questions About Tennessee’s Grooming Law
Is grooming a minor a felony in Tennessee?
It can be. The base grooming offense under § 39-13-536 is a Class A misdemeanor. The offense can become a Class D, Class C, or Class B felony depending on the nature of the alleged predicate acts, the minor’s age, and whether the position-of-trust provisions apply.
Can one message to a minor result in a grooming conviction?
One alleged predicate act does not satisfy the statute’s definition of a course of grooming conduct. Tennessee law requires a pattern of two or more predicate acts directed at the same minor that evidence continuity of purpose, together with the other elements of the offense.
A communication could still be relevant evidence or implicate another criminal statute depending on its content and circumstances.
Does Tennessee’s grooming law apply to text messages and social media?
Electronic communications can be relevant when their content and circumstances are offered as evidence of conduct covered by § 39-13-536. The statute is not limited to a particular social-media platform or communication method.
The prosecution must still prove the elements of the charged grooming offense.
Can a teacher or coach be charged with grooming a minor?
Yes, if the statutory elements are satisfied. Teachers and coaches are among the examples identified in the position-of-authority provisions.
Their occupational role alone does not establish grooming. The prosecution must prove the required course of grooming conduct, age relationship, specific intent, and other elements of the offense.
Does the minor have to know that grooming is occurring?
No. Section 39-13-536 provides that the minor’s lack of awareness of the grooming conduct is not a defense.
The prosecution nevertheless remains responsible for proving the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Can someone be convicted of grooming if no sexual contact occurred?
Yes, if the prosecution proves all elements of § 39-13-536. The statute expressly provides that the absence of completed sexual contact or a completed sexual offense is not a defense.