I wager most people don't have shots of children and adults pissing together or of a child holding a beer bottle. In other words, no not normal by cosensus.

"should at least bear in mind the possibility that whoever develops their film will hold a different view."

You're apparently late on the scene, here, since it's clear that this is precisely the point of the article, and why there is a cause for alarm. Namely, why should a worker at Walgreens make such a personally- and culturally-defined judgment? This is not to say that we are living in a police state, or that there is no legitimate problem of child pornography. Only that we have now witnessed both 1) a change in the norm (at least as interpreted by the legal community, which is the only norm that matters here) of how photographing naked children should be viewed, and 2) a change in available technology, allowing literally every moment of a child's life to be captured and documented in camera and video. Because of digital technology, instances such as what Jenkins experienced will become less common, but new clashes will arise as simply more video footage of people is available to both the private family and the public at large. Baby-blogs, babycams, and YouTube videos are just scratching the surface. The individual's rights to her/his captured image is an issue which, like copyright, will be scrutinized, challenged, and likely re-defined.

I, unfortunately, lived in Savannah for a number of years with my family. During that time, we all beared wittness to the dumb, the unexplainable and the absolute idiocy and nepotism that prevails throughout that city from hell. The people, if you could call them that, are so stupid that it needs no further explaining. Thank goodness we're actually from Florida. Anyways, this guy was just taking pictures of his kids, and some stupid clerk, most likely some toothless native of the city decided to be a "hero"...first of all, I'd be willing to bet that somewhere in her mother's closet is a picture of her or a sibling in the bathtub, naked. EVERY parent has taken that picture before, for no other reason than it's cute. plain and simple. the fact that this guy is getting so much flack is ridiculous. look in your closets. i guarentee that you all have a naked picture of your children somewhere. whats the next step in this ridiculous act of paranoia, no more hospital pics of newborn babies? please. give me a break. so typical.

>>I have photographed my boys in diapering/bathing/toweling/potty situations<<

Someone thought that this was obscene and embarrassing to the future adult children; I was defending this dad's actions.

It's true that I have never seen a picture of someone pissing out a fire, but others have pointed out that it is a tradition among some groups, such as boy scout troops, so I would classify that as normal as well (even if taking pictures of it isn't) and let other people make the moral judgment of whether it's okay or not for themselves.

(Note: It's VERY hard to compare experiences that occurred in 2 different jurisdictions. Where I worked, every effort was made to have cases closed in 45 days, 30 days being optimal. I had a good friend who did the same job in another state and would have to check in on families for months. Keep this in mind when reading my thoughts.)

I worked as an investigator in a child protection agency for 2 years. I can definitely empathize with the author of this story and some of the posters. At times I felt I had the greatest job in the world. Where it was clear-cut abuse or where there was hidden abuse going on and I was able to uncover it. (I will admit that I took satisfaction in outwitting abusers.) But on the other hand, there were times when I hated my job. Where I looked at a report and immediately wished I had another job. Where I showed up at a family's door and within 30 mintues knew that I was dealing with a loving family. Unfortunately, I had to continue 'investigating' these families in order to complete necessary tasks. I know exactly what the author means when he says that the caseworker was jumping through procedural hoops to satisfy bureaucratic demands.

Then there were the others. Where I was initially convinced there was no abuse, but the hoops alerted me to things I wouldn't have otherwise found.

In the jurisdiction where I worked, parents could have an attorney for the investigation but weren't provided one. If I made a removal, there was a hearing within 24 hours where they were appointed an attorney. The court appointed attorneys were competent and represented the parents well. I understand why the social workers in the article were frustrated that the author retained a private attorney during the investigation. I would estimate that 95% of my investigations were of families that didn't retain an attorney. Typically the families that did retain attorneys were wasting their money; I only removed children about 25 times despite investigating approximately 600 cases. There were no private attorneys in my area that specialized in dependency; parents usually sought domestic relations or criminal defense attorneys. From my perspective, these attorneys moved too cautiously and only added delay.

In 2 years I made about 25 removals. Of these, I believe 2 weren't warranted. This is an 8% error rate (probably higher because my calculations are biased), which is atrocious when dealing with this subject. Even a 1% error rate would be far too high. One of these removals I was against from day one. However, my supervisor and my supervisor's supervisor disagreed. What often happens is that a case goes by where a child wasn't saved despite an investigation and that child ends up murdered later. Even though no amount of diligence and foresight by the investigator could have saved that child, everyone from the investigator up to the director is fired to appease the public. So then you get a case like mine, where supervisors are so afraid that they become overzealous. Fortunately in this case, the family's attorney convinced the judge to return the children.

The other case where I made an unwarranted removal was my first removal, within a month of completing the 3-month training. This was a neglect case. The parents were young, uneducated and without family or community support. This case developed inertia that I couldn't stop, leading to removal. This family would likely have been better served by social services rather than by removal. I learned alot from this case. I was never again afraid to put the brakes on a case that first seemed like a surefire removal but began looking less serious. But I'm afraid that inertia still drives some cases and once the ball gets rolling it's hard to stop.

The author made mention of themes such as 'innocent until proven guilty' and alluded to personal rights that had been invaded. I'd always considered myself somewhat libertarian. However, when I began to work for this agency, that outlook softened a bit. For better or worse, people do not seem to have a problem giving up rights when it's 'for the kids.' The thing about my job that caused me the most anguish was the fact that I often invaded somebody's rights based on speculation. I couldn't wrap my brain around some of the information I had to collect or the lengths I had to go to do so. And though I could explain to clients the theories legitimizing the actions of my agency, I never could get myself to believe them all. I left that job for law school (I finish this year) and even though I'm not yet a lawyer, I will try to explain why 'innocent until proven guilty' and protections against warrantless searches don't apply. Basically, child protective investigations aren't criminal. They (theoretically) aren't meant to punish parents, they are merely protective. Since removing children isn't punitive, rights of criminal defendants don't apply. I'm sure anybody who has ever had children taken away will argue that it's not punishment, but that's the theory.

I'm out of words, so I will make this short. There's a dilemma about what is and isn't proper to protect children. In criminal law, there's the old maxim "It's better to let 10 criminals go than to hang one innocent man." If the state is going to protect children, it necessarily MUST infringe upon some rights. If the state is going to guarantee uninhibited rights, then it MUST live with the fact that children will be abused. Society must make a decision that falls somewhere in the middle. I walked away from my job a bit jaded and bemoaning the loss of rights, but I'm convinced that it's a necessary evil. If anyone can come up with a system that prevents abuse without infringing upon rights, please share it.