It's not entirely clear to me WHAT happened. There's a lot of material on the emotional reactions by the author and the other adults involved, but I *think* that what happened was: some government staffers confiscated some photos, communicated "we are investigating", failed to make a phone call on Thanksgiving, conducted some interviews, and closed the case.

Nobody was charged, nobody was threatened. Big Brother's crime seems to have been silence. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work?

Can someone propose another system that would protect children, and NOT work pretty much like this?

While I certainly sympathize with the author, and concur that the system is broken, this case seems like a textbook example of how the system claims it works. Certainly it does not always work like this, but this IS how it's supposed to work.

Since coming to the States to live from the UK I have always felt the USA was something akin to a police state. This article typifies the attitudes of the administration to its permanent residents and citizens.

I was awarded a green card in the international lottery and thought myself very lucky. One is, however, treated like some kind of hostile alien when one has a green card, in fact the card itself had 'ALIEN' emblazoned across the top.

It was easier to enter the USA on vacation with no permanent green card status. This was in 1998 pre the 9/11 tragedy.

From the moment I stepped off the plane an immigration official searched me out as we walked down the gangway as he had been informed I was flying on a one way ticket. And yet it was the USA who had randomly picked my green card application and invited me to become a resident.

Everything else is obvious: over zealous police force. Aggressive behaviour by trigger happy cops. An atmosphere of fear and suspicion pervades in this country, its citizens almost subliminally discouraged from going abroad and 90% of the news is local. The only international news one receives in the USA is pertaining to the USA. Take a look at the CNN site.

Americans are almost bamboozled from an early age to believe that the USA is the greatest nation on earth.

Says who?

This article typifies the way that innocent residents and citizens are treated and, sadly, they know nothing to compare it with because the country is so insular.

And before some smarty pants contributor to this forum bleats: "Well go back to the UK then" No I won't! I'd rather stay here and complain about it. Now I am a USA citizen just like you . . .

There we go again. It's all because of those conservatives. Fine. Eckerd's hypersensitivity, as well as the motivations of the drugstore clerk might well be the result of the fear mongering of the religious right. So might be the laws of some of these states, driven by politicians pandering to a certain section of the electorate.

Consider, however that conservatives are the ones who also try to limit the role of the government, keep them out of the family, rather than move towards a Scandinavian style welfare state where the state increasingly tries to play the role of the parents. If government agencies like the DFCS were not allowed to be overly zealous, if they had to operate within very stringent guidelines, things would have turned out very differently for the Jenkinses.

I read this verbal ping-pong, as the shots get wider and wider, and marvel that THE serious issue he brings up gets shoved aside.

"They" are doing such a good job protecting us that we're all going to wind up in jail for one thing or another. Or, if not in jail, broke because this low-level irritation and distraction drains our bank accounts, upsets our families, derails our lives to the point we can't work, get work, or, keep working.

You can blame this formally happy camper all you like for being naive, etc., but keep in mind that your turn at "official" oppression may be next.

The evidence used to drag this family down was a few photos out of the entire weekend. Pictures without context are like words without context. It is very easy to make a "case" when you exclude the rest of the evidence.

Wake up folks.

You may think it's not your problem...

But, maybe it's just not your turn yet.

"but at a much earlier point in this process someone should have looked at the actual pictures, discussed the issue with the parents and should have been able to dismiss this case fairly easily."

Actually James that is exactly what happened.

Photos were passed up the chain to people in authority who felt they warranted an investigation, and then contacted the parents for interviews to determine whether or not further investigation was warranted. That a judge seeing them wouldn't have likewise approved the investigation is silly to presume.

Warrants are granted due to adequate suspicion, not due to irrefutable proof. As this gentleman had taken photos that child protective services deemed adequate suspicion, it is unlikely that a judge not versed in the intricacies of kiddie porn (presumably) would have disagreed with this.

Also, no where in the story is it stated that neighbors, family and employers where contacted by anyone other than the writer. The caseworker simply informed them that they needed the information to contact these people, whether or not they did is left open, and as no repercussions are mentioned, and no statement about what they were asked is provided, I would presume that these other people were not contacted by child protective services.

Likewise, the statement that Child Protective services had a right to search the home was provided by the author’s lawyer, it was not a statement made by the case worker herself. When the caseworker did arrive no unlawful search or seizure occurred. And the author's wife was informed that no further investigation would proceed.

If for example, the author flew into a fit of rage and caused a scene at the child services office, a case might have gone forward, but then again it might not have. If a case was to proceed, and a full search of the home necessary, a warrant would most likely have been gotten, fairly easily, and the theoretical search would have been fully legal.

Social workers are trained individuals often in possessions of advanced degrees, and are versed in deciphering peoples motives based on their answers, and their behavior. That the author feels he should never have been questioned is irrelevant. I am certain people who have done far more questionable things have had the same righteous indignation. It doesn't mean that people shouldn't be investigated.

There are those, who due to hysteria have had their lives ruined due to over zealous prosecutors, and people who have lost their children because of overzealous social workers, this is not the case in this story. In truth, it is far more likely for social workers and prosecutors to err on the side of parental rights than not. For a social worker there is no easy middle ground, pursue actions too aggressively and you’re on a witch hunt, grant a parent the benefit of the doubt and your entire agency's mandate is called into question when a child is harmed.

From everything the author states, the agency behaved exactly as it should with the proper limits one would expect in a free society. That the author is prone to fits of rage, and unreasoning paranoia about government agencies is another issue entirely.