**"Who decides who is "under suspicion"?"**

Well, technically, any one accused of a crime is under suspicion. Since the law states that any accusation must be investigated, anyone that anyone else suspects, is by definition "under suspicion". Is that too lenient for you? It could be, but before any investigation can go forward there needs to be an accusation, and thusly someone needs to be "under suspicion". But perhaps we could just have roving cadres of police looking in everyone’s windows waiting to come upon evil, but I think there may be problems with that system as well.

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

Well that would be the highly trained people at the Department of Children and Family Services. Most states require that social workers have degrees, and most investigators have Masters of Social Work, and many have Ph.D.'s in Social Work as well.

**"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."**

O.k. where to begin, see my previous posts, and my previous statements about the trained social workers whose job it is to make these determinations. Oh and just for the record, the author's home was not searched, and he does not mention his or his wife's employer being questioned.

**"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."**

Again, the trained social workers of Savannah reviewed the materials, and questioned the immediate participants involved. How much less of an investigation do you require? How much more evidence is needed to call someone in for questioning?

**"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"**

This would lead to more false accusations, and embarrassment as lawyers forced to enforce zero tolerance laws would have no leeway to determine appropriateness. That is why trained social workers are trusted with this decision process.

**"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."**

O.k. so the solution is to allow people to not report abuse, just because their untrained judgment call makes them think that it's not a big deal? Doesn't that contradict your entire first argument, about untrained people supplanting their opinions for those of experts?

I think you need to think this one through a little better. Let us know what you come up with.

From the article: "[DCFS rep] Oney responded by asking for the names of friends, family, employers, teachers and any others she might interview to discern what type of people and parents we were."

Whether she did or did not contact each of these people is irrelevant. The point is that the investigation was full-blown at this stage, granting legal authority to the investigating body (DCFS, in this case) to contact employers, teachers, etc., as well as conduct a home search without warrant.

All of which would NOT have happened had a preliminary investigation (including a weighted and reasoned assessment of the evidence) been performed. This, for the thousandth time, is what could and should have been avoided with an amended protocol.

So, enough of the baby-with-the-bathwater mischaracterizations (pun intended): no one is arguing for a scrapping of child protection services. To the contrary, a more defined and responsible investigatory process would be beneficial for all parties involved.

**"Who decides who is "under suspicion"?"**

Any father who has a picture showing his penis and his 8 year old daughter in the same picture *should* be investigated! *most* men who are comfortable letting their 8 year old daughters see their penis also like to molest their daughters with said penises. I am glad the diligent social services are investing such cases to make sure no child is being molested.

Any man who would let another adult reveal his penis to his 8 year old daughter *should* be investigated.

That girl is not going to learn boundaries and when a teacher starts showing her his penis, she isn't going to understand the nuances of "good penis nudity" and "bad penis nudity/" Nudity boundaries are important to give children--who can't navigate complex nuances--a sense of control over their own body and to know that someone invading their space or exposing himself to her is wrong.

Yes I know the line was a cheap shot, and I owned up to it immediately.

My point was that some one did put the brakes on the investigation.

Someone trained, and versed in the issues at hand.

That person was the evil social worker that dared suspect a fine upstanding man like the author of such heinous deeds.

Look, the point is that the cop not being bothered by photos makes no difference in the case. Not to be inflammatory, but hey what if a cop thought a girl was asking for it? Or a fellow was in the wrong neighborhood, and needed to be taught a lesson? Do we really want a single beat cop enforcing the law as they see fit? I know often they do, but is that what we want?

No, we write laws so that no one is above the law and that no one can use influence or shared background with a police officer to escape investigation.

Are the laws on child pornography to vague? Probably, laws on all pornography are pretty vague. Thusly we have a lot of investigations into these issues, and very few convictions.

If people really feel that child pornography laws are too vague, well that's their opinion, and they are welcome to take it up with their local congress person. But none of the "solutions" suggested would provide either the freedom or the security that people want.

A more legalistic code would lead to more investigations not less. A child porn law would have to state any photo taken of a child for the purpose of titillation. Since you can't know the purpose of a photograph without an investigation of the photographer, virtually any photograph of child would be suspect.

The system as it is, allows highly trained professionals in the form of social workers to review the items and determine after talking to the participants (since you can only learn so much from the photos) whether or not a criminal case should be pursued.

Whether or not the author's friends and employers were questioned is a point of some debate here. At the beginning of the article he states in no uncertain terms that these people were questioned, though he neglects to state that the questions explicitly mentioned child pornography, simply that they were contacted and asked about their perceptions of his relationship with his children. Later he states that only at the end of the investigation where the names of these people requested, and then makes no mention of the calls. He likewise, gives no statements from said friends as to the content of the calls. This leads me to wonder exactly what DFCS said, and exactly what the timeline was. If I were a more suspicious person it might make me question the validity of the entire story, but I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt on that.

Finally, although people like to point to the author's explanation of the pictures as proof of their innocent nature, I think the three year old skinny dipping picture was the one that was the lynchpin of the investigation. If it resembles in anyway the artist's rendering that accompanies this article I do not have any reason to doubt the worry that the child might have been exploited. It could be an artistic shot of a naked young girl meant to capture her innocence, or it could the lascivious shot of a predator watching an unguarded unattended child. It's impossible to tell from just looking, but then again that's why you interview the subject.