Dad upset after naked kid prompts police visit

[Puddlejumper40]

Something else to consider. In the original story, there is only one event that the father found disturbing. He wasn't quoted as saying that he found the "threat" disturbing....


""The disturbing part of it was ... I had [previously had] a break-in in the middle of the day, with my wife and children inside the house eating lunch, and the RCMP had never even bothered to come — they said that they didn't have resources," he said.

Devils advocate? Maybe... Reading what has been printed and coming to a unbiased conclusion based on the information at hand? More accurate.

[Poindexter]

Can we at least agree the officer defintely said something to the effect that the MCF may be in involved? In which case at the very least it's an idle threat. So I guess we simply have to ask whether handing out idle threats to law abiding mothers is really in the best interest anyone.

[Smurf]

Is that a threat or a fact. Maybe if they are called back another time for a naked, young child, running out in the street they would be bringing or at the very least advising MCF. Are you sure he was not stating a fact or at the very least warning it was very likely what would happen. That is not a threat, that is a warning and probably should be heeded.

[Puddlejumper40]

Can we at least agree the officer defintely said something to the effect that the MCF may be in involved? In which case at the very least it's an idle threat. So I guess we simply have to ask whether handing out idle threats to law abiding mothers is really in the best interest anyone.

I agree that they were brought into it. But without the mother giving her side of the story as to how it was said, his tone, his body language, I still think it's pretty subjective to say that the police threatened on the little info we have.

[FreeRights]

I agree that they were brought into it. But without the mother giving her side of the story as to how it was said, his tone, his body language, I still think it's pretty subjective to say that the police threatened on the little info we have.

I would agree.

If police are in the wrong, I'm often one of the first on here to say so. But when they are not given the same benefit of the doubt that anyone else receives, I don't think it's fair to immediately conclude that they are acting in the wrong.

[MAPearce]

Is that a threat or a fact. Maybe if they are called back another time for a naked, young child, running out in the street they would be bringing or at the very least advising MCF. Are you sure he was not stating a fact or at the very least warning it was very likely what would happen. That is not a threat, that is a warning and probably should be heeded.

If you had ANY idea just "how" MCFD investigates calls about children , I'd bet you'd consider it a threat .. Know matter how it rolls off a tongue.

[Puddlejumper40]

Is that a threat or a fact. Maybe if they are called back another time for a naked, young child, running out in the street they would be bringing or at the very least advising MCF. Are you sure he was not stating a fact or at the very least warning it was very likely what would happen. That is not a threat, that is a warning and probably should be heeded.

If you had ANY idea just "how" MCF investigates calls about children , I'd bet you'd consider it a threat .. Know matter how it rolls off a tongue.

Not sure how your comment applies?

MCF was never contacted or never contacted the family in question. The debate is over if the police threatened this family with the threat of calling MCF. According to the father, he said the officer told his wife that the police "could" contact them if the police were called back to this house for the same concerns(having a 4 year old naked in the street).

Edited to add;

I think I get what you're saying now. You're saying if MCF is brought up no matter the circumstances, it's a threat, period. That's objective...

[Smurf]

MAPearce wrote:
If you had ANY idea just "how" MCF investigates calls about children , I'd bet you'd consider it a threat .. Know matter how it rolls off a tongue.

That is nothing to do with the police. They still have to do their job. If their protocol involves calling the MCF which I'm sure it does, then that is what they do. You can't blame them for that. If it is as bad as you say then I would say it is very nice of the officer to give a warning of what could happen. Kudos to the officer.

[Fancy]

The Mounties advised Marigta to keep both boys in the backyard if they are nude, or they would have to ‘‘let the courts decide’’ what is best for the children.

I can appreciate the parents being upset to hear that.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... rcmp-visit

[Puddlejumper40]

While that quote sheds some new light, leave it up to the media to only publish a partial quote. We still don't know exactly what was said.

From that above article;

Carol Ross, chair of the child welfare committee of the B.C. Association of Social Workers, said she does not have full knowledge of the case, but there appears little legal precedent for the RCMP’s visit.

“It’s not an abusive or neglectful behaviour, kids are in yard supervised and safe, having fun. It’s mystifying.”

She said she hasn’t heard of cases like this before, and that there would have to be serious allegations to elevate it to something Child Protection Services would investigate. “There would have to be reports of harm, the parents were being neglectful or harmful, and these would have to be serious. It all sounds very unusual.”

Ross says the biggest impact would be on the children’s state of mind. “When there is intervention by police or child protection, there is an impact on the children, you don’t want kids to be frightened by police,” she said. “You don’t want the kids left with any scars for something that was totally innocent.”

McIlwaine said Connor is now frightened of being removed from the home by authorities.

“He was crying because he is concerned now that the police are going to take him and Tyler away because they got naked, and it wasn’t even him, it was just my youngest son,” said McIlwaine. “But God bless him, he stands up for his brother no matter what.”


The dad already admitted that it was his personal coversation that caused the fear of the police. None of the reporters have that in their stories!

[Fancy]

The dad already admitted that it was his personal coversation that caused the fear of the police. None of the reporters have that in their stories!

The fear has been addressed. See goatboy's post on page 5.

[Puddlejumper40]

The fear of the children was addressed when the dad told the reporter that it was his conversation that scared his children. Others seem to think that the police were the ones who scared the children. I'm just calling it as I see it...

I read nothing on page five discussing why the children were afraid of the police.

[MAPearce]

Not sure how your comment applies?

MCF was never contacted or never contacted the family in question.

It applies as being part of the threat made by police.... " If we get another report , we'll call them"...

[Donald G]

To MAP ...

I think you are again beating the drum song from years past.

You have no idea what was said and neither do I. Only what was stated to have been said by people with a personal interest in the outcome or those, like yourself, who heard and reinterpreted what was said to have been said ... sort of ... kind of ... maybe.

[Smurf]

Also what you said " If we get another report , we'll call them", truth or not is a statement of fact, not a threat. All the officer said was if they were called again they would do this. That is a warning not a threat. I would appreciate getting a warning like that if I was them. A lot better that the alternative "Holly Cow Batman I didn't know that would happen".

EDIT TO ADD:

I can just imagine your reaction MAP if it happened again and MCF was called. You would be screaming blue murder that they didn't warn the people.