"no, but I am ok with someone who is under suspicion of child molestation being questioned... and that's exactly what happened here."

Who decides who is "under suspicion"?

Who decides when a full-blown investigation should be undertaken?

The fact that the legal system in Savannah, GA (and, unfortunately, many other communities) allows child pornography cases to be fully investigated (together with such no-going-back decisions as home searches, employer questioning, etc.) with insufficient evidence, specifically as a result of not implementing a reliable way of deciding when such investigations are legitimized (i.e., something beyond subjective interpretations by drugstore employees) is the proverbial white elephant in the room that all of you who keep blathering about "how did he hold his penis?" are inexcusably avoiding.

Once again: the problem is NOT THE REPORTING of the activity, which was perfectly reasonable in this case; rather, it's THE ABSENCE OF CASE ASSESSMENT by someone who is trained in child pornography. A preliminary examination which did NOT yet involve contacting employers, neighbors, etc., could easily have been conducted had the system included it as standard protocol. It did not.

Solution?

1) a full-blown investigation (i.e., home searches, teacher/employer notification and interviews, etc.) MUST be first authorized by a trained lawyer or a public official with specific expertise in child pornography; this is a no-brainer, and would have avoided the entire ordeal and mis-appropriation of resources

2) relatedly, the law should be amended to grant immunity to those who in good faith deem a situation not to be child abuse or pornography. That way, those who report cases of abuse of questionable merit, simply to err on the side of mandatory reporting laws, might feel less pressure to do so.

>>it's THE ABSENCE OF CASE ASSESSMENT by someone who is trained in child pornography>>

There's no way you can say there was no assessment by someone who is trained. We don't know that! You're trying to discredit the department, about which you know nothing! The neighbors were NOT interrogated (it was the wife who voluntarily told her neighbor she was being investigated). Gross misrepresentations only hurt your credibility. We don't know how the case was assessed by the county; the author didn't tell us and I doubt they told him!

The guy was never even falsely accused. He himself said he was never charged; he was never accused. He was investigated based on valid concerns, and the investigation showed there was no cause for charges.

"The neighbors were NOT interrogated (it was the wife who voluntarily told her neighbor she was being investigated)"

From the article: "We suffered the embarrassment of having DFCS interview our family, friends, employers and our children's teachers, asking them whether we were suitable parents and what kind of relationship we had with our kids"

"Really, so, Barney Fyfe with his advanced degree in child psychology looked at the photos, and said well this looks no different than when Uncle Cletus would take me into the woods and show me his happy place. Case Dismissed!

O.k. That is a highly unfair representation of the Savannah Police Department, but it is meant to illustrate a point. The fact that a cop looked at the photos and didn't feel they were out of the ordinary isn't at issue here."

Yeah it is, as well as a bad illustration. Of course it's part of the issue. You're simply trying to downplay it. The cop might not have an advance degree in child psychology, although, I'm not sure why he would need one to assess potentially questionable photos, but, it probably makes more sense to at least consider the judgement of a law enforcement officer, who at least has some background with well you know..criminals...rather than a drugstore clerk who, in this case, can't even tell if one of the photos show a beheaded kid or not.

"A cop could have just as easily looked at the same pictures and agreed whole heartedly with clerk."

Could have but didn't. In fact, he agreed with the woman friend of the family.

"The cop was bound by the law to turn over the photos, and so he did. Likewise, a lawyer reviewing the photos would have (and probably did) proceeded in accordance with the law, and processed the questionable photos up the ladder."

So? That's one of my points. Someone should have looked at this and put the brakes on it.

i read the piece again. i did not get that the neighbors/friends were interrogated. The caseworker took down names, and the wife decided to give them a head's up.

Most of the persecution that ACTUALLY happened, occurred in the writer's mind. (I presume that his attorney was giving him worse-case scenarios, which only fed his fears.)

The real timeline.

They had an intial meeting... And then for a long time...NOTHING HAPPENED. They received no communication from the authorities, (who were probably not seeing this as a priority.)

Due to their anxiety, they contacted an attorney, which supprised CPS (probably once, again, because this wasn't viewed as a high priority case). Sad to say, but sometimes when you engage an attorney, it does raise suspicion that you have something to hide.

They had a meeting with an authority, who took down some names. The wife then contacted those people.

CPS never followed through with that, and never gave a household visit. They asked the children some questions (this is after the father scared them by telling them that they could be taken away).

I think that the father exercised poor judgment in the photos, that he is innocent of child pornography, that they had a brush with the legal system because of those photos. Perhaps he overestimated the degree of scrutiny that was being given them.

I'm sorry that they had this experience. But if I were his wife, I would be right pissed at him for being so clueless and exposing my family to risk!

Well very glad to live in Europe,(Germany) it could not happen here Mr jenkins,on tv naked guys, naked women ,women breast feeding babys naked , kids running around naked, So what ,and if Mum and dad are in Spain or italy or elce where and the kids are on the beach naked and they take a Pic thats as normal as pie. theres some thing wrong with the US of A