What Does Child Molestation Mean Under Texas Law?
Texas has no offense literally called "child molestation." Prosecutors charge the conduct under one of three statutes — indecency with a child (§ 21.11), aggravated sexual assault of a child (§ 22.021), or continuous sexual abuse of a young child (§ 21.02) — and the differences among them are measured in decades of prison exposure.
Open the Texas Penal Code and search for "child molestation" — you will not find it. The phrase is the colloquial umbrella that police reports, news stories, and worried families use, but Texas prosecutors must charge a specific statute. In practice, nearly every case described as child molestation in Collin, Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant County is filed under one of three laws, and the differences among them are measured in decades of prison exposure.
Indecency with a child — § 21.11
Under Penal Code § 21.11, a person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17, the person either engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact, or — with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person — exposes the person's anus or genitals knowing the child is present, or causes the child to expose the child's own. The statute applies whether the child is of the same or opposite sex and regardless of whether the accused knew the child's age. "Sexual contact" is defined in § 21.11(c) as touching — including touching through clothing — of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals, when done with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire.
Aggravated sexual assault of a child — § 22.021
Section 22.021 reaches penetration and oral-contact conduct. When the complainant is younger than 14, the offense is automatically aggravated under § 22.021(a)(2)(B) — no weapon, injury, or threat is required, and consent is legally irrelevant at that age. Penetration allegations involving a complainant who is 14, 15, or 16 are instead charged as sexual assault of a child under § 22.011(a)(2), a second-degree felony with its own defenses.
Continuous sexual abuse of a young child — § 21.02
Enacted in 2007, § 21.02 targets ongoing abuse: two or more "acts of sexual abuse" committed over a period of 30 or more days, by an actor 17 or older, against a child younger than 14 (or a disabled individual). The Legislature built the statute for cases where a young child can describe a pattern but cannot pin dates to specific events — the appellate courts have explained that the continuing course of conduct, not any single act, is the gravamen of the offense. Holton v. State, 487 S.W.3d 600, 606–08 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015).
Which Statute Applies: § 21.11, § 22.021, or § 21.02?
Charge selection drives everything — the punishment floor, parole, probation eligibility, and the defenses available. The contact/penetration line and the complainant's age determine whether a case is a third-degree felony, a second-degree felony, a first-degree felony, or a 25-to-life continuous-abuse count.
Charge selection drives everything — the punishment floor, parole, probation eligibility, and the defenses available. The quick map:
| Statute | Conduct covered | Complainant age | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 21.11(a)(1) | Sexual contact (touching, incl. through clothing) | Under 17 | 2nd-degree felony |
| § 21.11(a)(2) | Exposure with intent to arouse or gratify | Under 17 | 3rd-degree felony |
| § 22.021(a)(2)(B) | Penetration or oral contact | Under 14 | 1st-degree felony |
| § 22.011(a)(2) | Penetration or oral contact | 14–16 | 2nd-degree felony |
| § 21.02 | Two or more acts of sexual abuse over 30+ days | Under 14 | 1st-degree felony, 25–life |
Two charging dynamics are worth knowing. First, indictments in long-running cases often plead a § 21.02 count with § 22.021 and § 21.11 counts "in the alternative" — a structure the statute itself authorizes in § 21.02(e)(1) — so the jury can land on a lesser theory without an acquittal. Second, there is a statutory quirk defense lawyers watch for: § 21.02(c)(2) excludes indecency by breast touching from the list of predicate "acts of sexual abuse." Conduct that would support a stand-alone § 21.11 count cannot always serve as a building block for the 25-to-life continuous charge.
What Are the Penalties for Child Molestation in Texas?
Every offense in this cluster is a felony, each carrying a fine of up to $10,000 on top of confinement. Ranges run from 2–10 years for indecency by exposure up to 25 years to life with no parole for continuous sexual abuse and for aggravated sexual assault punished under § 22.021(f).
Every offense in this cluster is a felony, and each carries a fine of up to $10,000 on top of confinement (Penal Code §§ 12.32–12.34). The ranges:
| Offense | Classification | Confinement | Key consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indecency by contact — § 21.11(a)(1) | 2nd-degree felony | 2–20 years TDCJ | Lifetime sex-offender registration |
| Indecency by exposure — § 21.11(a)(2) | 3rd-degree felony | 2–10 years TDCJ | 10-year registration after discharge |
| Aggravated sexual assault of a child — § 22.021 | 1st-degree felony | 5–99 years or life | Lifetime registration; aggravated parole rules |
| § 22.021 with victim under 6 (or under 14 + aggravating manner) | 1st-degree felony, § 22.021(f) | 25–99 years or life | No parole — Gov't Code § 508.145(a) |
| Continuous sexual abuse — § 21.02 | 1st-degree felony (special range) | 25–99 years or life | No parole — Gov't Code § 508.145(a)(2) |
Three escalators deserve emphasis. Section 22.021(f) lifts the minimum to 25 calendar years when the child is younger than six, or younger than 14 where the State proves an aggravating manner such as serious bodily injury, threats, or a deadly weapon. Government Code § 508.145(a) then removes parole entirely for § 21.02 sentences and for § 22.021 sentences punished under subsection (f) — 25 years means 25 actual years. And Texas's two-strike rule, Penal Code § 12.42(c)(2), mandates an automatic life sentence for a § 21.11(a)(1) or § 22.021 conviction when the defendant has a prior conviction for a listed sex offense.
Elements the State Must Prove
Conviction requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the elements differ by statute — sexual contact and intent under § 21.11, penetration and age under § 22.021, and a 30-day series of two or more acts under § 21.02.
Conviction requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements differ by statute:
- Indecency with a child by contact — § 21.11(a)(1)
- (1) The defendant touched the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child — or caused the child to engage in such contact; (2) the child was younger than 17; and (3) the touching was committed with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Touching through clothing qualifies; the court of appeals in Tienda v. State, 479 S.W.3d 863, 873–74 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015), held that the statutory definition applies "without reference to the number of layers of clothing or fabric" separating the parties.
- Indecency with a child by exposure — § 21.11(a)(2)
- (1) The defendant exposed the defendant's anus or genitals knowing a child younger than 17 was present — or caused the child to expose the child's own; and (2) the act was done with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. Knowledge of the child's presence is the contested battleground in many exposure cases.
- Aggravated sexual assault of a child — § 22.021(a)(1)(B), (2)(B)
- (1) The defendant intentionally or knowingly caused penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child, penetration of the child's mouth by the defendant's sexual organ, or the listed contact between sexual organs, anus, or mouth; and (2) the child was younger than 14. Mistake about age is no defense, and the child's willingness is legally meaningless at this age.
- Continuous sexual abuse — § 21.02(b)
- (1) The defendant committed two or more statutorily listed "acts of sexual abuse"; (2) over a period of 30 or more days in duration; (3) while 17 or older; (4) against a child younger than 14 (or a disabled individual). Under § 21.02(d), jurors need not agree unanimously on which specific acts occurred or their exact dates — they must agree only that two or more acts occurred over a 30-plus-day span. Holton upheld that structure against a jury-unanimity challenge, reasoning that the "series" is the element and the individual acts are merely the manner and means. 487 S.W.3d at 606–07.
How Do Prosecutors Build a Child Molestation Case?
These prosecutions rarely begin with physical evidence — they begin with a statement, and Texas procedure is engineered to carry that statement to the jury through the outcry witness, the forensic interview, and the no-corroboration rule of Article 38.07.
These prosecutions rarely begin with physical evidence. They begin with a statement — and Texas procedure is engineered to carry that statement to the jury.
The outcry. Under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072, the first adult (18 or older, other than the defendant) to whom the child described the offense may repeat the child's account at trial as substantive evidence — an exception to the hearsay rule — if the State serves 14-day pretrial notice and the trial court holds a hearing and finds the statement reliable in its time, content, and circumstances. Which adult qualifies as the first to hear a sufficiently detailed account is litigated constantly, and an outcry that shifted between tellings is fertile cross-examination material.
The forensic interview. After a report, the child is typically interviewed at a children's advocacy center — the Dallas Children's Advocacy Center or the Children's Advocacy Center of Collin County, for North Texas cases — by a trained interviewer while detectives watch. The recording rarely comes into evidence wholesale, but it anchors the investigation, locks the complainant into a narrative, and becomes the defense's baseline for spotting suggestive questioning, contamination by adults, and material inconsistencies.
The medical and digital layer. A sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) exam may follow recent allegations; in delayed-outcry cases — most of them — there is usually no physical finding either way. Detectives round out the file with phone extractions, social media, and sometimes a recorded "one-party consent" call in which a family member, coached by police, presses the suspect for an apology.
The corroboration rule that is not one. Texas law does not require corroboration of the complainant: under article 38.07, a child complainant's testimony alone can legally sustain a conviction — the Tienda court applied exactly that rule. That is why the defense focus in these cases is credibility architecture — the outcry chain, the interview record, and motive evidence — rather than waiting for a forensic silver bullet. Article 38.37 adds one more State advantage: in listed child-sex prosecutions it relaxes the usual ban on character-conformity evidence, so allegations of other acts can reach the jury after a preliminary hearing.
What Defenses Work Against Child Molestation Charges?
Defense strategy is statute-specific, but the recurring lanes are attacking the intent element, scrutinizing fabrication and coaching, challenging the outcry and forensic interview, the narrow statutory affirmative defenses, identity and opportunity proof, and statement suppression.
Defense strategy is statute-specific, but in North Texas practice the recurring lanes are:
- Attacking the intent element. For § 21.11, the State must prove intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire — and because intent is "inferred from conduct, remarks, and all surrounding circumstances," Tienda, 479 S.W.3d at 873, ordinary caregiving can be misread. Bathing a toddler, applying medication, or breaking up roughhousing involves touching; it does not involve sexual intent. The defense forces the State to show why the innocent explanation fails.
- Fabrication and coaching. Allegations that surface mid-divorce, after a custody motion, or following discipline disputes deserve scrutiny of every adult who questioned the child before the forensic interview. Repeated, leading questioning by a motivated adult can implant detail a young child then sincerely repeats.
- Outcry and interview challenges. An article 38.072 reliability hearing can exclude or narrow the outcry witness; deviations from forensic-interview protocol — multiple interviews, reinforcement, contaminating praise — support a suggestibility defense presented through experts.
- The statutory affirmative defenses. Section 22.011(e) (age-gap, complainant 14 or older), § 21.11(b) (actor within three years of age, no duress, no registration history — and, distinctively, only for opposite-sex conduct), and § 21.02(g) (actor within five years of the victim, no force or threats, no registration duty). The opposite-sex limitation in § 21.11(b) is a textual trap with constitutional implications counsel should evaluate case by case.
- Identity, opportunity, and the physical record. Household layouts, work schedules, and travel records can contradict an alleged window of opportunity; where the allegation describes conduct that should leave medical or DNA evidence, its absence matters.
- Statement suppression. Pre-arrest "clear your name" interviews and coached confrontation calls generate the State's favorite exhibits; involuntariness, deception about the interview's purpose, and Miranda defects are litigated under article 38.22.
A clearly hypothetical illustration: a stepfather is accused after he pulled a 6-year-old out of a bathtub during a tantrum, gripping her torso — the child later tells a grandparent "he grabbed me where my swimsuit goes." Nothing about the touching's location is disputed; everything about intent is. That case is won or lost on context, the outcry chain, and the interview record — not on whether contact occurred.
Can a Child Molestation Charge Be Dismissed or Expunged?
Outright dismissals happen, but they are earned, not granted — through grand-jury presentation, proof problems at the Article 38.072 hearing, suppression, and charge-selection fights. A conviction in this cluster cannot be expunged or sealed because it carries sex-offender registration.
Outright dismissals happen, but they are earned, not granted. The leverage points: a grand-jury presentation (defense counsel may submit an exculpatory packet before indictment), proof problems exposed at the article 38.072 hearing, suppression of a defective confession, and charge-selection fights — for example, contesting whether the evidence actually spans the 30-day period § 21.02 requires or whether the predicate acts qualify under § 21.02(c).
The record consequences are unforgiving. A conviction under any of these statutes cannot be expunged, and Texas's record-sealing statutes do not reach offenses that carry sex-offender registration — so the realistic paths to a clean record run through declination, dismissal followed by expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55A, or acquittal. Probation relief is equally narrow: these offenses sit on the article 42A.054 aggravated list, which removes judge-ordered community supervision after conviction. Decisions made in the first weeks — whether to interview, what to present to the grand jury, which counts to fight — carry permanent record consequences.
County-by-County Practice Notes
Felony child-sex cases in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties run through dedicated crimes-against-children dockets and county children's advocacy centers, and detectives almost always seek a voluntary interview before any arrest — the window where counsel matters most.
Collin County. Felony child sex cases from Frisco, Plano, and McKinney are indicted and tried in the district courts at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building), 2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney. Forensic interviews generally run through the Children's Advocacy Center of Collin County, and the district attorney's office assigns these cases to prosecutors who handle crimes against children as a dedicated docket. Expect detectives to request a voluntary interview before any arrest — the window where counsel matters most.
Dallas County. Cases are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 N. Riverfront Boulevard, with forensic interviews through the Dallas Children's Advocacy Center. Dallas's grand jury volume means indictment timing varies widely; counsel who engage the assigned prosecutor early can sometimes be heard before the case is presented.
Denton County. Felony dockets sit at the Denton County Courts Building, 1450 E. McKinney Street, Denton — the venue for cases arising on the Denton County side of Frisco, plus Little Elm and The Colony. Bond conditions restricting contact with minors, including the defendant's own children, are common and should be litigated early when they separate families.
Tarrant County. Prosecutions run through the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center, 401 W. Belknap Street, Fort Worth. As elsewhere, the children's advocacy center interview and CPS investigation typically precede charges — a parallel civil track that can generate statements usable in the criminal case.
Enhancements & Collateral Consequences
The sentence is only part of the cost. A conviction triggers sex-offender registration under Chapter 62, strips firearm rights, carries near-automatic immigration removal as an aggravated felony, and opens licensing-board discipline — and the two-strike rule looms over any later accusation.
The sentence is only part of the cost. A conviction in this cluster triggers sex-offender registration under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 — lifetime for the contact and penetration offenses, which Texas classifies as "sexually violent offenses," and a 10-year post-discharge term for exposure-based indecency. Registration brings public listing on the DPS database, residency and employment screening, and supervision conditions that commonly bar living near schools, parks, and daycare facilities.
Beyond registration: felony conviction strips firearm rights under Penal Code § 46.04 and federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); federal immigration law treats sexual abuse of a minor as an aggravated felony with near-automatic removal consequences for non-citizens; family courts routinely restrict or supervise parental access during and after the criminal case; and licensing boards — teaching, nursing, childcare — open their own disciplinary tracks on arrest, not conviction. The two-strike statute, § 12.42(c)(2), looms over any later accusation: a second listed conviction means automatic life.
