“Sexual contact is just the direct or indirect touching of the genitals.
That is where the changing of the diaper could come into play.” The ruling states: "Prosecutors are unlikely to charge parents, physicians and the like when the evidence demonstrates the presence of an affirmative defense." But the dissenting justices write: “Parents and other caregivers who have changed an infant’s soiled diaper or bathed a toddler will be surprised to learn that they have committed a class 2 or 3 felony.” The ruling provoked anger on social media.
The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona issued a decision interpreting a state law to criminalise any contact between an adult and a child's genitals.The It examined the language used in the state's sexual abuse laws and ruled that any contact with a minor's genitals should be conisdered molestation or sexual abuse - with no requirement of proof of sexual intent.However in the 20-page state supreme ruling, the majority writes 'prosecutors are unlikely to charge parents, physicians and the like when the evidence demonstrates the presence of an affirmative defense.'Defendants facing a case of this kind would have to prove their own innocence, instead of the state proving their guilt.The dissenting opinion said requiring the defendant to prove innocence, the state has 'shifted to the accused the burden of proving the absence of the very fact, sexual motivation, that distinguishes criminal from innocent conduct.' And with defendants having to prove their own innocence, parents and caregivers could face lengthy court battles to prove their was no sexual intent in child caring activities such as changing a child's diaper.The sweet conversations that once marked their relationship had been replaced with constant bickering. The Devil had begun his work before they'd even made it to the altar.
Their laughter had dulled, and their distance had grown. Though Tim and Jess are Christians, their dating and engagement were marked with sexual impurity.
One Facebook user, Emily Dawson Areinoff, wrote: "What does this mean for daycare providers, non-parental caregivers, and schools who serve special needs kids?
For parents of premature babies, finding a nappy that both fits and takes care of their delicate skin can be a big challenge.
The 20-page ruling defines "sexual contact" as "any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact." It later cites the child molestation statute, stating: "A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child who is under fifteen years of age." Legal analyst Monica Lindstrom said the wording of the ruling suggests merely changing a child's nappy could make an adult culpable of being charged.
She told : “The statue says intentionally or knowingly having sexual contact.
Laws define such contact as child molestation or sexual abuse and the statues do not require the 'touching' to be sexual in nature.