No false positives is an unreasonably high standard, as it no false negative. For example, children do sometimes lie, or they claim abuse when there isn't any w

No false positives is an unreasonably high standard, as it no false negative. For example, children do sometimes lie, or they claim abuse when there isn't any when under the influence of other adults who distort the child's notion of what constitutes abuse. Perfection is not attainable, whether false positives or false negatives are concerned. Mistakes will happen. You cannot assume the worst as a precaution, nor ignore evidence that strongly suggests abuse. We cannot control the world. Lots of crime happens that is never punished, sometimes because of the neglect of the state, but also sometimes because chasing down every crime does more harm than good. In the case of child abuse, an overbearing state with oversensitive notions of child abuse is dangerous. The state must accept its limitations and mind the common good. The question is a matter of having sufficient evidence, taking precautionary measures proportional to the evidence of abuse when it makes sense, and the use of prudential judgement. The last one is unavoidable. The law is not a mechanically applied algorithm. It is something that requires good judgement. The most important things are sound abuse laws, and competent people with good judgement who have a good understanding of abuse and the law.