[kira]

Even if nothing illegal is found it still may be evidence enough in a custody case to keep the children from him. Having the police look at it and even take it in as evidence to be used later could end up being a great help even if nothing else needs to be done to him because no laws were broken.

[rcoreyus]

I called the police action draconian because they do not seem to balance the risks of abuse against other non-physical risks to a child's well being. In the case I'm familiar with there was almost no evidence of abuse (and I'm sure none happened), but "just to be safe" a 5 year old was taken away from her parents and put in foster care for over a year. Can you imagine the impact of this on a young child? This was based on the word of a single person, with both psychologial and medical tests indicating that there had been abuse.

The effect of a false accusation on the accused is even worse.

[jns]

And was there hard evidence such as in the OP's case? Medical tests cannot say who caused what by themselves. Psychological tests can be unreliable. Look up "McMartin preschool trial" in Wikipedia. Do the police mostly or always get it wrong when they have hard evidence?

[rcoreyus]

The OP had hard evidence of someone watching cartoon child porn, but if there was any evidence of actual abuse I missed it. Someone with a sexual interest in children shouldn't be around children, and I'm perfectly OK with throwing the guy out of the house. The problem is that when law enforcement gets involved a man who likely never harmed anyone may have his life destroyed. It he case I'm aware of, with no evidence of actual abuse, a family was broken up, children sent to foster care etc. In the case I was involved in, I'm certain there was no abuse - the accuser all but admitted to having made the claim in retaliation for something unrelated. Eventually child protective services agreed that there was no abuse, but still kept the children out of their home for a year.

If you haven't been involved in a the sort of case its hard to imagine how vindictive the system is. The police want a conviction. Child protective services wants more children under their care. "Protecting the children" is used to excuse almost anything.

[DreamP346]

If you haven't been involved in a the sort of case its hard to imagine how vindictive the system is. The police want a conviction. Child protective services wants more children under their care. "Protecting the children" is used to excuse almost anything.

I think this is a huge generalization of a profession that is severly under paid, under a lot of pressure, working long hours, while seeing the worst of society. Most people don't wake up every morning looking to distroy other people's lives, especially young innocent ones. Not saying there aren't some people out there like that, but I think the majority of people aren't malicious. Are there cases where innocent people get accused - yes. Are there cases where guilty people never get accused - yes. Is our current system flawed -yes. But trust me, child protective services don't want more children under their care. They usually have too many to handle. Its not like their funding gets determined based on the number of kids they can remove from their homes.

Yes, police want a conviction. Who wouldn't if you believe the person is guilty, especially if your job involves seeing people do horrible things to kids all the time.

We cannot judge the entire system based on your one experience. There are 100's of stories most of us can tell about childs being removed from a dangerous situation, or not being removed in time.

The OP's partner had kiddy cartoon porn. I don't know if that is illegal, but it does warrent asking the cop. If it is illegal, then is needs to be reported as such. Its not an accusation of abuse, its a reporting of possessing illegal materials. If its not reported, it may possibly become a problem for the OP in the long run. What if she is accused of possessing kiddy cartoon porn herself. The fact she never reported it as her partner's and it was on a shared computer can become problematic.

[Stillness]

It's not rcoryeyus' one experience. It's his, mine and a lot of other people's. When there was recently an allegation of abuse in my family it was decided that we'd handle it internally as opposed to dealing with the authorities because of bad experiences with them.

Looking at cartoons of pornography does not equate to sexual abuse of children. I'm not an expert, but I do think it can be deemed as illegal in the United States if it's determined to be devoid of merit (artistic, scientific, etc.) and "indecent." That is obviously subjective though. I think that if you've had a lot of pleasant experiences with the authorities or none at all, you may see them as a solution to a problem like this. To me, they're to be dealt with only in extreme cases because there's such a risk that introducing them into any situation will make it worse. They come with guns, strip freedom, and sever child from parent only to put them in situations where they'll be worse off. Not always, but too often for my liking.