What should the system have done differently?

(And no, Ryan, I am not going to shut up just because you're an insulting boor and want me to)

Just to get y'all started:

The system should have been more efficient, should have called back quickly, should have expedited the interviews and closed this case sooner.

And I rebut:

This is all very well except that efficient governments scare me more than inefficient ones, as a general rule. But, nontheless, good point. Leaving families in doubt and worry is bad.

If this story is true, I weep for my country.

In the interest of semantic correctness I will retract use of the word "fact" in this context, as even the venerated DSM IV doesn't consider a person a "pedophile" until he has acted upon his fantasies. Instead, I will simply say that it is an article of faith (and taught as fact) among child sexual abuse workers, healthcare workers and law enforcement officers, based on vast but admittedly scattered experience (that is, unsupported by any officially sacntioned studies - the bane of the madical profession) that those who find fascination with prepubescent children (to the extent of procuring media which might appeal to prurient interest) do progress to actual acts or sexual contact. You are correct in that this cannot be classified, by official study, as "fact."

This whole tangent is somewhat off-topic, I suppose, in that the parents involved in the case are certainly not suspect (by me, anyway) of even remotely being pedophiles. The issue was raised, as you obviously know, by someone who has served a customer he cited as having a probable interest in prepubescent children and we got off (pardon the expression) on the current tangent from there. In fact I have heard there are some studies supporting this "article of faith" but have not seen them nor am I especially interested in seeing them unless they are very large-scale ones, as I have found that, at least in medical circles, studies primarily serve to jerk the professional around on a weekly basis as to what is "fact" and what is merely "anecdotal evidence."

"5) Yes, the system needs improvement and no, throwing money at it is not the only answer, but, I do think that the social services where I live are dreadfully underfunded, and that Bush's 'faith-based initiatives' aren't really helping much. Paying people more could be defended pretty easily, I think, although passing such a law would be difficult. Sometimes, however, you do get what you pay for."

You won't get any argument from me there. I certainly didn't intend to come across as an apologist for the current administration, nor as one who stereotypes government workers, who often try to do the best they can in thankless jobs.

Odd that innocently framed shots of kids can be considered reportable just because they're nude, but dressing little girls like sexual adults and having them perform dances and songs with sexually explicit moves and lyrics is just "Beauty Pagents". Remember Jon Benet Ramsey anyone? The film of her was horrifying and her parents and many other parents push these kids into this behavior. This is somehow fine while a shot of your child taking a bath is to be reported to the police?

Something similar happened to me many years ago when my son Jamie was six. He had been caught doing something sexual with another boy at an after-school activity at the Y. The Y called the police. The police told me that they suspected I was sexually abusing him.

Long story short, police officers brought a social worker to my house and they interviewed Jamie alone, decided that he wasn't being abused, and never charged me. I was terrified that Jamie would say something innocent that would come out sounding wrong, and that they would take him away from me. Fortunately, he didn't.

The whole thing had me in a state of extreme anxiety for weeks. When it was finally over, I was more relieved than I had ever been in my entire life. To this day, I have never talked with anyone about this incident, with the obvious exception of Jamie. I did absolutely nothing wrong, but I felt guilty. I still do. It's hard to describe, but it made me feel ashamed. Even more so, because of my sister.

My sister was sexually abused by my father throughout most of our childhood. She never got over it, and eventually committed suicide as an adult. No one reported my father. He got away with destroying her life. To say that I support vigorously prosecuting sexual abusers is an understatement.

How can we find a legal balance that will expose people like my father, but not falsely accuse people like me? Can it be done?

Why should kids have to "survive" bad parenting at all? And isn't NO alcohol always a better example?

So here we have a guy who's moving with his family out of the country--a big deal, as you know if you've ever done it--and apparently the most helpful contribution he can make is to get his whiny ass out of the way while his wife does the work. No big surprise, then, that his ham-handed immaturity (to put the reported events in the kindest possible light) still found a way to fuck things up--for himself, his wife, and their three kids. What a self-involved fool.

"Why should kids have to "survive" bad parenting at all?"

Perhaps because calling the average level of functional parenting over the past ten thousand years "bad" is actually a way of saying "everyone born before me was stupid and evil and didn't really love their kids as much as I do?" The point is that it WASN'T bad parenting then, and it isn't now. If parents love their kids, generally, they provide good parenting, even if they aren't perfect, or rather, don't conform to the current fad definition of perfection.

"And isn't NO alcohol always a better example?"

No, being responsible and honest is always a better example. If you don't drink, though, I don't recommend starting just to show your kids it can be done responsibly. That wouldn't be honest, after all.