4 ms·

The sequence of events that is wrong here, is that if a person calls 911 claiming that there is child abuse going on, and the "child abuse" is a child playing o

The sequence of events that is wrong here, is that if a person calls 911 claiming that there is child abuse going on, and the "child abuse" is a child playing outside or walking to the park alone, the person should be fined. There is a difference between "I saw little Johnny outside for hours in the cold, I think there is child abuse." or "I saw bruises all over little johnny, I think there is child abuse." and "A child was walking outside alone, there is child abuse".

HWR_14 4y ago
Of course what happened in this case wasn't child abuse. But the reporter didn't say "I saw them playing outside". They said "the child is being neglected". Yes, it turns out the reasons for the person calling saying so were wrong. But if the child wasn't being given food or medical care it would have been reported the same way. So the government had to investigate. Using the future knowledge that the investigation turned up nothing to suggest it should not be done isn't really something that can be applied.