You're basing your argument entirely on probability, and assuming all risk must be mitigated. Or I'm taking you too literally, in which case I apologise. Howeve

You're basing your argument entirely on probability, and assuming all risk must be mitigated. Or I'm taking you too literally, in which case I apologise. However. Risk exposure is more than probability - it's probability multiplied by impact. And only then does one consider an approach - accept, transfer, manage, and so on. In this case if one chose to manage the risk, the mitigation would require (one possibility) enshrining something in law, so that parents of these kids DON'T get prosecuted. That's a one-off, and possibly no more expensive than the cost of a single prosecution/incident. Given that, doesn't it make sense to do this, making it just go away, and giving people that peace of mind? Regardless of the low probability? Cost is clearly less than protecting a populace against meteors.