The Sound of Freedom Act and Redefining Parental Duty in the Fight Against Trafficking.

By Kelly McAllister

The topic of human trafficking often conjures images of organized crime networks or films like Taken. The reaches of trafficking, however, extend further than what one typically expects, like a child’s Little League soccer game or on an online game like Roblox.[1] The common thread amongst all trafficking scenarios is the vulnerability traffickers look for.[2] Predators often target individuals in unstable living situations, knowing these conditions make their victims more susceptible to manipulation and desperate to have their basic needs met.[3] This vulnerability is further exploited in cases of familial trafficking, where the bonds within families are manipulated to facilitate or “turn a blind eye” to the trafficking of young family members.

In response, Alabama lawmakers recently passed the Sound of Freedom Act, which has been described as one of the toughest anti-minor trafficking bills in the nation.[4] The act’s goal is to counter the multi-billion-dollar human trafficking industry and position Alabama as a leader in prosecuting traffickers.[5] With the act receiving overwhelming support from state representatives and civilians alike, this passage of the Sound of Freedom Act, alongside recent prosecutorial trends, opens the door to holding parents or guardians liable for failing to protect their child from trafficking.[6]

    I.        Why Are Parents at Risk for Criminal Liability?

Almost half of the identified child trafficking cases begin with the involvement of a family member, with familial trafficking occurring up to four times more often than in adult trafficking cases.[7] The Polaris Projects has reported that familial trafficking is the second most common form of introduction into the commercial sex industry, aligning with similar findings across the states.[8]

    A.        What is Familial Trafficking?

           Familial trafficking involves the exploitation of a minor, both sexual and labor, within their own family for money or other goods of value.[9]This method of trafficking is estimated to make up thirty-seven to forty-one percent of all child trafficking and is one of the most common forms of trafficking.[10]Familial trafficking is especially insidious because it is inflicted by individuals whom a child trusts the most.[11]These types of traffickers exploit this relationship and a child’s inability to express themselves verbally and tend to groom and traffic their victims at an earlier age than other forms of trafficking.[12]

Although familial trafficking cases involving forced labor-- such as begging or domestic work-- are more common, these children often endure some form of sexual exploitation as well.[13] Just because a child is not trafficked for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation, however, does not also mean they will not experience sexual abuse or exploitation. During the trafficking process, children have an increased risk of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse, often compounded by manipulation through drugs and alcohol.  These statistics, however, reflect only the experiences of victims in discovered cases, indicating an even greater hidden prevalence. 

    B.        Challenges in Identifying Familial Trafficking

Familial trafficking presents unique challenges in identification and intervention. Parents involved in such circumstances may be complicit in the trafficking of their children, either out of ignorance or coercion.[14]For example, some parents may not report or intervene in a trafficking situation because they may be reluctant to accept that a member of their own family is trafficking their child.[15]Coming to terms with this is all the more difficult for parents who may also be trafficking victims themselves because they may see the situation as unavoidable.[16]Generational abuse can normalize the exploitation of children within a family unit.[17]Victims may not even be aware of their victimization, much less witness the exchange of money or value for their trafficking.[18]

For this reason, the prosecution of familial trafficking requires the inspection of a “spectrum of intent” to evaluate a family member’s involvement and awareness.[19] While family members may unknowingly place their child into a trafficking situation in search of a better life for their child, it is also not uncommon for the relative to exploit the child in search of some material gain.[20]

    C.        Barriers to Addressing Familial Trafficking

            Familial trafficking cases are often overlooked due to the societal bias that families would never choose to exploit their children.[21] The child’s inherent loyalty to and reliance on their family make familial trafficking challenging to identify[22] Moreover, law enforcement’s lack of training and expertise exacerbates this issue as officers rarely have cases to learn from.[23] Further, screening tools to ascertain the relationship of the victim and their trafficking.[24]

Reported cases are frequently misidentified as child sexual abuse or other maltreatment due to familial trafficking’s atypical methods of advertisement.[25]Tragically, one study showed that eighty percent of victims were wrongfully detained or arrested as children under the presumption that they willfully engaged in commercial sex that was actually initiated by a family member.[26]These instances of misclassification may result in lighter sentencing for offenders, wrongful punishment of the child, and even parental reunification, which further perpetuates the cycle of abuse.[27]

Family members may also ignore the exploitation to protect the family and their reputation.  Victims often face the impossible choice between unmet basic needs and continued abuse.  Even mandated reporters fall short of doing their duty. A study shows mandated reporters may prove to be no further help in such circumstances, with almost eighteen percent stating they would probably not report if they knew an adolescent being coerced to exchange sex for money and approximately fifty-seven reporting that they believed some female children would choose to prostitute themselves.[28]This highlights the need for improved training and raises questions about parental liability. If law enforcement and other mandated reporters cannot recognize familial trafficking, other family members are likely the only ones left to intervene. Should a parent who ignored active trafficking within their family be punished for their willful ignorance?

    II.        A Potential New Category of Parental Responsibility

Most states, in some form, hold parents or guardians responsible for any theft or property damage committed by their child.[29] Recent years have shown convictions for parents whose children have committed violent crimes primarily under the doctrine of negligence.[30]Indictments have also been made for parents who forced their children to beg for money or who exposed their children to sexual abuse.[31] These cases all share a theme of parental involvement, whether direct or by gross negligence.[32]

    A.        How Parental Responsibility is Determined

Alabama law recognizes a parent's legal duty to care for and protect their children.[33] The Courts have emphasized that parents must take  “every step reasonably possible under the circumstances of a given situation to prevent harm to their children” without endangering themselves.[34] In some cases, this may mean parents would have been expected to intervene physically, while in others, it would only be reasonable for a parent to search for help.[35] Once at trial, it would remain up to the jury to determine what response would have been reasonable.[36]

Parental responsibility laws were developed due to the belief that parents must prevent their children from engaging in behavior that is harmful to society.[37] Parental neglect laws impose stricter standards, requiring parents to provide adequate food, medical treatment, supervision, education, clothing, or shelter.[38] In trafficking cases, the element of supervision becomes critical under the Alabama Code.

Determining parental responsibility requires the analysis of several factors, including (1) the age of the child, (2) the nature of the offense, (3) parental involvement, and (4) preventative measures the parent(s) took to prevent the engagement in the criminal act.[39]

The Sound of Freedom Act already holds parents and guardians accountable for knowingly allowing or benefiting from trafficking; however, its language does not explicitly detail charges for those who are indirectly involved in trafficking.  Lesser trafficking charges may be given to parents who permit trafficking indirectly through their negligence, abuse, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.[40]

    III.        Broader Liability Under Alabama Law

Alabama lawmakers have demonstrated their commitment to increasing penalties for trafficking and the abuse of children.  The Sound of Freedom Act represents a significant shift toward holding all parties accountable for the trafficking of a child, which could potentially include parents and guardians who fail to protect their child from traffickers.

    A.        Negligence and Supervision

74.3% of child maltreatment victims reported they were neglected, with one in four girls and one in thirteen boys reported experiencing child abuse in the United States.[41] Parents can be charged with criminal negligence if they fail to perceive substantial risks constituting a gross deviation from reasonable diligence to supervise their child or willfully aid, encourage, or cause the child to become delinquent or dependent.[42] Expanding liability under the Sound of Freedom Act increases the likelihood of parental convictions and lends to the possibility of convictions for neglectful and willfully ignorant parents.

  B.     The Sound of Freedom Act: Stricter Punishments in the Name of Prevention

           The Sound of Freedom Act was one of four bills that Alabama senators planned to file to strengthen criminal penalties against those who abuse children with plans to attack each layer of the crime.[43] Senator Arthur Orr explained the rationale behind these measures, stating, “Adults ought to know well enough to never abuse children sexually. If they do, they should pay the ultimate price for such evil selfishness that harms and destroys the most vulnerable among us.”  

The Sound of Freedom Act amended Ala. Code § 13A-6-152 to increases the minimum sentence for first-degree human trafficking to life imprisonment for recruiting, enticing, harboring, or profiting from trafficking a minor. This action reflects Alabama’s alignment with national anti-trafficking trends and its dedication to protecting children alongside the potential for the implementation of additional increases in punishment.

    IV.        Conclusion

            The 2021 Federal Human Trafficking Report noted that over half of the victims identified in new criminal human trafficking cases were children, and in sex trafficking cases, children accounted for 66% of the victims.[44] With prosecutions for human trafficking doubling over the past ten years nationwide and stricter liability laws being implemented, the likelihood that parents will soon be held liable for their child being trafficked is greater than ever.[45]The Sound of Freedom Act positions Alabama at the forefront of anti-trafficking efforts with a legal framework that could soon extend criminal liability to parents. As the societal understanding of trafficking, specifically familial trafficking, evolves, so must the legal system’s response to ensure all parties complicit in trafficking are held accountable.

[1] Jen Cardone, What Is Being Done to Combat Human Trafficking in Alabama?, CBS42; Department of Defense, Combating Trafficking in Persons Student Guide: Luring Children Online (n.d.) (discussing the arrest of 7 adults in St. Petersburg, FL who kept 2 boys prisoner after luring them offline after communicating with them on Fortnite and Minecraft).

[2] Cardone, supra note 1.

[3] Id.

[4] Mary Sell, Lawmakers Seek Toughest-in-Nation Anti-Minor Trafficking Bill, Death Penalty for Sexual Battery, Ala. Daily News (2023).

[5] Id.; Cardone, supra note 1.

[6] Sell, supra note 4.; Ala. Code §§ 26-14-1 et seq. (mandating the reporting and criminalizes the failure to protect a child from harm).

[7] Int’l Org. for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative: Data Brief- Human Trafficking Through the Lens of Exploitation Types, 2017 (referencing the statistic that 41% of trafficking recruitment is facilitated by family members, in comparison to the 14% of cases initiated by intimate partners, 11% by friends, and 34% of cases described as ‘other’); U.S. Dep’t of State, Navigating the Unique Complexities in Familial Trafficking, 2021 (reiterating the IOM estimate that 41% of child trafficking experiences are facilitated by family members or caregivers); North Carolina Child Advocacy Centers, Part 1: Summary of NC Child Advocacy Centers' Data (2020) (referencing the 2019 PIVOT Study that suggests a high percentage of child trafficking cases in Kentucky were familial).

[8] supra note 7; Colorado Human Trafficking Council (2021). Annual Report to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-3-505 (reporting “intrafamilial” perpetrators in 42% of reported cases); Minnesota Office of Justice Programs Minnesota Statistical Analysis Center. (2019);. Human trafficking in Minnesota, . A Report to the Minnesota Legislature (reporting on 2018 data that  45% of victims were recruited by a family member at 24% were trafficked by a family member); Beautiful Ones Ministries, Inc. (2015), . Rapid assessment on domestic minor sex trafficking: Mississippi, Hinds, Madison, Rankin, and Warren counties,. P.1 (reporting familial trafficking was the most common form of exploitation).

[9] INHOPE, What is Familial Trafficking, INHOPE (2025).

[10] Id.; U.S. Dep’t of Just., Familial Trafficking: How Familial Relationships Are Used to Facilitate Human Trafficking, COPS Office Dispatch (Jan. 2024) (referencing The International Organization of Migration 2017 study and the Polaris Project’s study); U.S. Dep’t of State, Navigating the Unique Complexities in Familial Trafficking, 2021 (reiterating the IOM estimate that 41% of child trafficking experiences are facilitated by family members or caregivers).

[11] Dressember, Breaking Down the Myth: Why Familial Human Trafficking Goes Unnoticed, 2023; U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 8 (referencing Shared Hope Int’l, Warning Signs of Familial Trafficking, (2020)); U.S. Dep’t of State, supra note 8.

[12]  U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 8 (referencing Shared Hope Int’l, Warning Signs of Familial Trafficking, (2020)); U.S. Dep’t of State, supranote 8; Int’l Org. for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative: Data Brief- Human Trafficking Through the Lens of Exploitation Types, 2017 (51% of trafficking victims reported the main method of control by family members was psychological).

[13] Int’l Org. for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative: Data Brief- Human Trafficking Through the Lens of Exploitation Types, 2017 (36% of familial trafficking victims are sexual exploitation cases).

[14] U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 8.

[15]  Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id. (referencing the U.S. Dep’t of State, Navigating the Unique Complexities in Familial Trafficking, 2021).

[19] Dressember, supra note 5.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.; North Carolina Child Advocacy Centers, Part 1: Summary of NC Child Advocacy Centers' Data (2020).

[22] U.S. Dep’t of State, Navigating the Unique Complexities in Familial Trafficking, 2021.

[23] North Carolina Child Advocacy Centers, Part 1: Summary of NC Child Advocacy Centers' Data (2020).

[24] Id. (citations omitted).

[25] U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 8.; North Carolina Child Advocacy Centers, Part 1: Summary of NC Child Advocacy Centers' Data (2020)

[26] North Carolina Child Advocacy Centers, Part 1: Summary of NC Child Advocacy Centers' Data (2020) (referencing Reid et al.)

[27] U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 8.

[28] Hartinger-Saunders, R. M., Trouteaud, A. R., & Matos Johnson, J. (2017). Mandated reporters’ perceptions of and encounters with domestic minor sex trafficking of adolescent females in the United States. American journal J.of Oorthopsychiatry, 87(3), 195.

[29] California Parental Responsibility Laws, Nolo, (2025) (parents may be liable for up to $25,000 per incident of the child’s willful misconduct); Ohio Parental Responsibility Laws, Nolo, (2025) (parents are liable for up to $10,000 for a child’s willful and malicious of assault that was likely to cause bodily harm); Alabama’s Parental Responsibility Law, Nolo, (2025) (parents are only liable for a child’s purposeful property damage).

[30] Jodi S. Cohen, Michigan School Shooting Parents Fight Criminal Charges in Case with National Implications, Marshall Project (2024) (detailing Jennifer and James Crumbley’s trials for  involuntary manslaughter for their child who committed a mass shooting); Glenn Thrush, Deja Taylor Sentenced to 21 Months in Virginia School Shooting Case, N.Y. Times (2023) (a mother of a child that shot a teacher was charged with child neglect).

[31] See Justin Strawser, Police Arrest Mother of Girl Suspected of Being Forced Into Prostitution, Las Cruces Sun-News (2018); see also C.G. v. State, 841 So.2d 281 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).

[32] Are Parents Responsible for Their Child’s Crimes?, Shotwell Law Firm Blog (2021)

[33] Ala. Code § 26-17-2; R.J.D. v. Vaughan Clinic, P.C., 572 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Ala. 1990) (“parents are the first to decide what is actually necessary for the protection and preservation of their child’s life so long as they are acting as a reasonable and ordinarily prudent parent would act in the situation”); C.G. v. State, 841 So.2d 281, 289 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (with emphasis).

[34] C.G., 841 So.2d at 289.

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] Ala. Code § 13A-6-153; Ala. Code § 13A-13-5; Ala. Code §§ 26-14-1 et seq.; Ala Code § 12-15-102.

[38] Ala Code § 12-15-301.

[39] Shotwell Law Firm; supra note 22.

[40] Ala. Code § 13A-6-153; Ala. Code § 13A-13-5; Ala. Code §§ 26-14-1 et seq.; Ala Code § 12-15-102.

[41] Am. Soc’y for the Positive Care of Child., Child Maltreatment Statistics, 2025; Nat’l Child.’s Alliance, Nat’l Statistics on Child Abuse, 2025.

[42] Ala. Code § 13A-13-6.; Ala. Code § 12-15-13(a).

[43] Sell, supra note 4.

[44] Cardone, supra note 1 (referencing the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report); Bureau of Just. Stat., Human Trafficking Data Collection Activities, 2024.

[45] Cardone, supra note 1 (referencing the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report).