Committee advances grooming-of-children bill after parents, law‑enforcement testimonies; probation limit added

The Joint Judiciary Committee voted to sponsor 26LSO79, a draft to expand or clarify criminal liability for grooming of minors, after multiple victims and witnesses urged the panel to act and the committee debated sentencing and statutory alignment.

Patricia McCoy, who described a family experience she said involved long‑running manipulative behavior by adults toward her child, told the committee that "grooming is a manipulative process where the offenders establish trust with children and those who care for them, often with the intent to exploit them or harm them." She urged lawmakers to authorize earlier intervention so prosecutors can act before more serious sexual offenses occur.

Brandy Sorensen also testified about a 15‑year‑old child who, she said, was targeted by an adult in a position of trust. Sorensen described a pattern of gifts, boundary testing and "setting up secret communication channels, all with the clear intent to isolate him and break down his appropriate boundaries." She recommended changes including a reasonable‑person standard in the secrecy element and a statutory age‑disparity clause to cover older teens who prey on younger minors.

Law‑enforcement witnesses told the committee existing statutory tools can be limited: Alan Thompson, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, said statutes that prosecute sexual offenses after penetration leave a gap for intervening earlier in a grooming progression. He described policing support for a narrowly‑targeted criminal offense that captures predatory manipulation rather than ordinary adult‑minor contact.

Committee members debated several amendments. Sponsor Senator Crago offered an amendment to mirror statutory age language used in the state’s statutory sexual‑offense provisions so the grooming offense does not create inconsistent age limits with other statutes. The committee also discussed lifetime probation language in the draft. After debate, members adopted an amendment limiting probation for the offense to no more than 10 years rather than permitting lifetime probation.

The committee recorded a roll call vote to sponsor 26LSO79; staff reported the vote as 13 ayes, 1 excused. Members said they expect further drafting work to refine definitions (for example the meaning of "secretive relationship," which witnesses asked should not be conflated with legitimate supportive relationships) and to ensure the statute targets purposeful predatory manipulation rather than legitimate adult‑youth support activities.

Legislative staff and the sponsor said they will circulate the final, amended draft for legal checks and watch for technical questions from prosecutors about overlap with existing sexual‑offense statutes.