Grooming Allegations in Washington: What You Need to Know

The Washington Supreme Court addressed the controversial use of grooming evidence in criminal prosecutions in the case of In re Personal Restraint of Phelps (2018). In that case, the Court of Appeals initially reversed a man's convictions after finding that a prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence about grooming. While the Supreme Court ultimately overturned that reversal, the case highlights the ongoing debate about how grooming allegations should be presented in Washington courts.

What Is Grooming Under Washington Law?

In Washington, grooming refers to behaviors used to gain a person’s trust or lower their boundaries before sexual abuse occurs. It can involve building a relationship with someone, spending time with them, or normalizing physical contact to make abuse less likely to be resisted or reported. The problem is that these situations can be normal and innocent, but are misconstrued as grooming.

While the term appears frequently in court, “grooming” is not a defined criminal offense under Washington State’s sex offenses statute, RCW 9A.44. Prosecutors may describe such conduct in argument or testimony, but actions that might be considered “grooming” cannot serve as an independent criminal charge.

However, Washington’s educator misconduct code provides an official definition. Under WAC 181-88-060(1)(d), sexual grooming means “befriending or establishing a connection with a student or a student’s family to lower the student’s inhibitions for the purpose of a sexual relationship.”

This administrative rule applies to professional discipline of educators, not criminal cases, but reflects how Washington authorities understand and use the concept. The lack of a statutory definition makes its use in the prosecution context both context-dependent and sometimes controversial.

The Legal Problems with Grooming Evidence

Washington courts have repeatedly warned that grooming evidence carries a significant risk of prejudice. Many actions labeled as “grooming” — such as physical affection, attention, or mentoring — can also be consistent with ordinary caring or teaching behavior. Without direct evidence of intent, these behaviors can be easily misinterpreted.

Courts caution against using expert grooming testimony to imply a perpetrator profile, which can lead to circular reasoning:

“Child molesters groom; the defendant groomed; therefore, the defendant must be a molester.”

This reasoning, rejected in State v. Braham (1992) and revisited in Phelps, risks transforming otherwise neutral conduct into evidence of criminal intent. Accordingly, Washington trial courts are urged to closely scrutinize any grooming-related testimony or argument to prevent undue weight being given to speculative behavioral evidence.

Key Washington Cases on Grooming Evidence

State v. Braham (1992) — Conviction Reversed

In re Personal Restraint of Phelps (2018) — Washington Supreme Court Decision

Related Washington Sex Offense Charges

Grooming allegations often appear alongside other serious charges under Washington law, including:

• Child molestation in the first degree (RCW 9A.44.083) when the alleged victim is under 12 years old.
• Child molestation in the second degree (RCW 9A.44.086) when the alleged victim is between 12 and 14 years old.
• Child molestation in the third degree (RCW 9A.44.089) when the alleged victim is between 14 and 16 years old.
• Sexual misconduct with a minor (RCW 9A.44.093 and RCW 9A.44.096).
• Communication with a minor for immoral purposes (RCW 9.68A.090) — Washington's primary statute for prosecuting grooming-related conduct.

Our Seattle sex crime defense attorneys have extensive experience defending against these types of charges and understand how grooming allegations factor into each kind of prosecution strategy.

Communication with a Minor for Immoral Purposes: Washington's Grooming Statute

RCW 9.68A.090 is Washington's primary statute for prosecuting grooming-related conduct. This statute criminalizes communication with a minor, or someone believed to be a minor, for "immoral purposes," which can include actions that are part of a grooming process.

What Counts as "Communication"?

Washington courts broadly interpret "communication" under RCW 9.68A.090 to include both verbal and non-verbal conduct. This means it can involve not just direct speech or text, but also actions like leaving notes or engaging in behavior intended to initiate contact with a minor.

Penalties for RCW 9.68A.090

All convictions under RCW 9.68A.090 require sex offender registration under RCW 9A.44.128, regardless of the communication type.

Potential Consequences of Grooming Allegations

Even though grooming isn't a standalone crime, being convicted of a sexual crime can cause:

• Enhanced sentences (aggravating factors: abuse of trust, exploitation of vulnerable victim)
• Mandatory sex offender registration under RCW 9A.44.130
• Civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages
• Loss of employment, especially in fields involving children
• Destruction of professional reputation
• Restrictions on contact with minor children (including your own)
• Impact on child custody and visitation rights

When False Grooming Accusations Arise

Common scenarios:

1. Custody disputes: One parent fabricates allegations for advantage.
2. Misinterpreted relationships: Appropriate mentoring, teaching, coaching seen as grooming.
3. Troubled adolescents: Seeking attention or escaping discipline.
4. Cultural misunderstandings: Different norms about adult-child interactions.
5. Adult manipulation: Third parties with their own motivations.
6. Mistaken identity: Particularly in online sting operations.

Our investigation uncovers: Evidence of coaching, suggestive questioning, fabrication motivations, the accused's good character, and appropriate behavior with children.

What to Do If You've Been Accused of Grooming

Take these steps immediately:

1. Do NOT speak with law enforcement, CPS, or anyone about allegations without an attorney present.
2. Do NOT contact the alleged victim or their family — can be characterized as witness intimidation.
3. Preserve all evidence — text messages, emails, social media, photos, documentation of interactions.
4. Write a detailed timeline of the relationship with the alleged victim, including all interactions and witnesses.
5. Contact an experienced attorney immediately — earlier retention = better protection of rights.

Schedule a Confidential Consultation

At Marshall & Saunders, we understand what’s at risk when a person is accused of a sex crime. We have dedicated ourselves to providing superior legal defense in high-stakes cases such as these. If you have any questions and would like to schedule a consultation with one of our exceptional attorneys, please contact us today.