The case of six-year-old Adam Walsh is perhaps one that will never leave the mind of anyone initially horrified by its details. In 1981 young Adam was kidnapped from a local shopping mall and, despite the tireless efforts of his parents John and Reve Walsh, volunteers and law enforcement; Adam was the victim of a murder. Two weeks after the boy's disappearance, his decapitated head was found, but his body was never found. This prompted his father John Walsh to initiate a campaign and legislative policy proposal towards stricter accountability for juvenile delinquents. “The murder transformed John Walsh's life, transforming him from a middle-class hotel marketing executive into one of the country's best-known advocates for missing children” (Thomas, 2008). This paper examines the initial legislative policy signed into law by President George W. Bush and Walsh's current policy addition initiative. The Scope of the InitiativeWith the signing of the initial policy by President Bush in 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act became law. As mentioned above, the policy directive was however to enact stricter laws on child predators; the policy contains two additional provisions that would violate state rights and state policy currently in effect for adoptive, foster and parenting providers. The two provisions contained in the Adam Walsh law follow.1. Modified existing requirements for conducting criminal background checks2. Created a new requirement to conduct child abuse registry checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents. (Miller, 2007). The political provisions, however, leave to the States the discretion to choose the placement, if those who are part of the family request the adoption or foster care of... ... half of the document ... I, as in the aforementioned Morse report, I now have the opportunity to express concerns and suggestions. Conclusion The Adam Walsh Act, while regulatory and legislative, still requires changes before all stakeholders unite in approval. While Congress could use its spending power to encourage state compliance, not all states would consider it constitutional. There is a lot that goes into this act, but the outcome is unpredictable. There are currently calls to repeal or revise the entire Adam Walsh Act, for example by Citizens for Change in America, represented by Michael R. Handler. The repeal document cites the AWA as draconian and contrary to the Due Process and Bail Reform Act of 1984. Only time will prove that the Adam Walsh Act is successful as currently written, but no doubt there are changes coming with such opposition and reasoning..