"He Said, He Said . . ."

Now the other guy is lying too? Except that he's not and neither was the author but since somebody else could have been lying then well....

"why are so many people defending sex abuse of children"

WOW, just wow. You've gone way off the deep end.

i usually agree with pretty much everything you say, you are a voice of sanity and common sense in a forum that has a lot of extreme positions.

But I don't think that it is necessarily abusive for a child to see a parent naked.

For some of us who live in small houses, share bathrooms, etc. It may happen that the child sees the parent showering, getting dressed, etc.

IMHO the best tact is to aim for modesty, but if they do see you, don't make a big deal of it, treat it as a minor accident. And then cover up.

now taking photos of parents naked with children depends on the context... in the bedroom... No! At a nudist colony... ok!

"The facts of this case are that an investigation occurred because photos were determined to be questionable, not by a photo clerk, but by everyone except a single beat cop, who felt that they depicted normal camping activities. This is not to discount that one cop, he was presumably right, but why should his opinion on the pictures be placed above his superiors, and the social workers?

Thanks all for your time and consideration of my humble opinions."

That's the facts? Don't think so. Once the clerk handed them in, there had to be an investigation. The system had to follow through. It's not like the there was a vetting process each step of the way and all the parties, except the beat cop, found the pictures questionable and then decided to go to the next phase after each vetting step. Once they were orginally turned over the system was legally obliged to fully investigate period. I think that's Kendra's point, no?

Thank you as well.

"No one wants to be investigated, but it is necessary in our world. Sometimes innocent people get accused of crimes they didn't commit. It's horrible, but it is the cost of a fallible system, which is better than no system at all.

Grow up; you can't protect everyone from everything. All you can do is try and protect those who are too young, and too weak to hire a lawyer. Grown ups have the ability to defend themselves, and sometimes they have to. How the hell is a kid supposed to defend themselves if we stack the system against them?"

I'm sorry but that's utterly emotionally manipulative nonsense. The choice is not between falsely accusing some people and no system at all and I love how some people continually and blithely dismiss being falsely accused of a henious crime. Hey, if it's just the cost of the fallible system then YOU shouldn't mind paying that cost, right? You'd be perfectly fine with being falsely accused of molesting your kids because it's just the cost of the system, huh? I doubt it. You have nothing to hide, right? You're not a child molestor, eh? Funny how that cost is fine so long as someone else is paying it.

I don't think anyone has asked to be protected from everything. I don't think not being falsely accused of molesting your kids is asking for special protection from life, but if you are, it's okay because you might be able to afford a decent lawyer so it's all good. Uh huh. How on earth is trying to make the system better so that people are not falsely accused of molesting their kids stacking the deck against kids in general? that doesn't make sense.

Also, in reality, regardless of the system in place, the sad truth is kids can't defend themselves. The best we can hope to do is catch the offendors after the fact and/or before the next victim. False accusations don't help the matter.

Kendra;

Exactly what is the difference between a "full blown" investigation and an investigation?

You keep on throwing around these words, with no real definition, as to what you mean by it.

An investigation is looking into facts; that requires, looking at the pictures, which the social workers did, and asking people questions, which the social workers did.

You say you accept the social workers as appropriate officials to make the decision with regard to investigation, so what exactly about this case doesn't follow exactly the prescribed lay out you have?

This wasn't a criminal investigation, presumably that could be the difference between an investigation and a "full blown investigation". There is no police record for this, simply a note in a social services file, which if another social services complaint is filed would be seen by the next trained investigator. No denial of life liberty or property occurred, and no one's right to parent was taken away. What differentiates you're proposed rules from this case? How would those rules have altered the occurrences in this case?

KStone;

Yes the guys buddy was there. In fact, what you have is one guy taking naked pictures of another man's daughter. Yeah, I am sure that one guy vouched up and down for the other guy's honor and decency, and vice versa. I kind of have to believe that as both men were under investigation that both of their explanations were taken into account, and since we don't have any information on what the other guy said, there is little to go on. But I am sure that when you have two guys, who take their young kids up into the woods for candid photography, and there is an ulterior motive, their stories would be starkly similar to the ones given by these two innocent men.

Additionally, since we don't know exactly what the other guy said during his interview, perhaps he said, "Hey, I didn't take those pictures, I had no idea my buddy was taking those pictures of my kids. If I had known I would have stopped him." It's a possibility, but its pure speculation. People are afraid of these investigations, as it is easy to see how someone's life could be ruined by them. However, by focusing on the idea that someone's life could be ruined, and not the facts of the case, specifically that no lasting harm was done to anyone's family, career, or relationships, we simply propagate this myth, and encourage others in this situation to "tell the investigators what they want to hear" which may well lead to more innocents being investigated.

The facts of this case are that an investigation occurred because photos were determined to be questionable, not by a photo clerk, but by everyone except a single beat cop, who felt that they depicted normal camping activities. This is not to discount that one cop, he was presumably right, but why should his opinion on the pictures be placed above his superiors, and the social workers?

Thanks all for your time and consideration of my humble opinions.