Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well yeah but what about the pictures they recover from pedophiles of kids just standing nude; especially younger kids - what does that fall under? They're not doing anything sexual but the purpose of the picture is not innocent. I remember one case in Fl where the guy had little girls (like 4 and under) standing nude with a baby doll - I think he was a foster parent but I'd have to google it to get all the facts.
I don't have an issue with the pictures being reported by Wal-mart; I'm a better safe than sorry person but I think CPS needs to examine their policies on how they handle cases like this.
I understand the policy indeed, because Wal-Mart clerks are not a judge as to whats legal and not legal.
That being said, this is just another example of CPS going over and above their legal authority against someone who has not violated the law..
So every family that takes nude photos of their kids should be investigated?
No, but if those pictures show genitalia, then there is a reason to verify that the children aren't in danger. Should the children be removed from the home, I personally don't think so unless there are other compelling reasons. But my opinion doesn't coincide with the law's opinion on that matter.
Yeah, but are we going to ban all parents from taking photos of their kids just because some perverts get a stiffy out of it? At what point do you give up your freedom altogether?
I just don't see the benefit in taking pictures of your kids naked. Yeah, sure every once in awhile they do something really cute and you just have to take a photo of it; okay yeah I get that but I have never thought it was "cute" to have a picture of my son with his penis showing.
The photos were a red flag that caused authorities to look at the intent of those who took the photos. And to see if other photos had been taken that compromised the children further.
The parents weren't convicted of being pedophiles, or even charged.
The outrage in this is that the children were removed from a loving home for one month while authorities investigated.
Sorry but to have the legal authority to remove children for ONE day from some individuals home, you should indeed have some question as to if they have violated the laws..
You dont get to first remove children from a home, and then make a case that a law was violated, doing so is backwards and simply against everything that is american.
Sorry but to have the legal authority to remove children for ONE day from some individuals home, you should indeed have some question as to if they have violated the laws..
You dont get to first remove children from a home, and then make a case that a law was violated, doing so is backwards and simply against everything that is american.
Exactly. It would not have been hard to look at intent before removing the kids.
Sorry but to have the legal authority to remove children for ONE day from some individuals home, you should indeed have some question as to if they have violated the laws..
You dont get to first remove children from a home, and then make a case that a law was violated, doing so is backwards and simply against everything that is american.
I think so too; I'm wondering why they didn't do a visit to the home first to see if there was a reason to remove the child from the house. I thought that was the procedure; I've never heard of them just taking the child and then conducting an investigation whenever it's convenient.
Sorry but to have the legal authority to remove children for ONE day from some individuals home, you should indeed have some question as to if they have violated the laws..
You dont get to first remove children from a home, and then make a case that a law was violated, doing so is backwards and simply against everything that is american.
The presumption of guilt perspective has already been asked and answered.
The presumption of guilt perspective has already been asked and answered.
Incorrect, the finding of guilt was the outcome, the presumption of guilt will always be in the fact that these individuals now have a CPS record that they should not otherwise have based upon the legal taking of photos.
Incorrect, the finding of guilt was the outcome, the presumption of guilt will always be in the fact that these individuals now have a CPS record that they should not otherwise have based upon the legal taking of photos.
Go back and read some of my earlier posts.
These individuals weren't found guilty. It was not an outcome. They don't have a record. They did lose one month with their children while they were being investigated. That is a legitimate basis for their complaint against CPS.
But if you don't know that they were found completely innocent, why are you even posting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
