Mrs. C and I watched “Sound of Freedom” yesterday. It’s a disturbing look into the ugly world of child trafficking.
I’m skeptical of statistics from organizations that are promoting a cause, but it appears there’s been a large increase in child trafficking, and almost nothing is being done about it. I hope the movie does something to change that.
One question I had while watching the movie was how a parent can prove that a child is theirs. If law enforcement believes a child is being trafficked, how can they know?
Sometime in the near future, they’ll probably be able to do an instant DNA check (if that’s not ruled an unconstitutional search), but today, how can law enforcement be certain of such relationships?
QUOTE: How a parent can prove that a child is theirs…today, how can law enforcement be certain of such relationships?
“If” there’s “reasonable” suspicion a child might be in danger, it’s likely law enforcement would have to hold the child in custody until the parents or legal guardians could produce records (e.g., birth certificates, government issued documents, etc.) or corroboration that would verify the child belongs within their custody. Unfortunately, it could lead to some temporary false custody challenges (if the parents/guardians don’t have easy access to such resources), but it’s likely better to be safe than sorry.
The government documents only work if the child’s identity is established. How do you establish the identity of the child, though?
QUOTE: The government documents only work if the child’s identity is established. How do you establish the identity of the child, though?
I suppose the second part of my previous statement would have to suffice…“or corroboration that would verify the child belongs within their custody”. Do you have other ideas for identity establishment?
I don’t. I consider it a very tricky problem.
Some families will have enough pictures, maybe a doctor willing to vouch, etc. But it’s really hard to prove a given child belongs to a given parent when it’s difficult to prove (in a legal sense) who a child is, in the first place.
Indeed, it is difficult. I was thinking along the lines of legal testimony from extended family, neighbors, doctors or others that could credibly vouch for the child’s identity. In some cases, a blood/DNA test ‘might’ give some clues. A challenge with pictures is they can be easily photoshopped these days.
The good news is that more countries have increased their efforts to document the birth/parentage of children but there’s still a significant gap.
None of which is available to a policeman asking a suspicious man to show that the kids in the back of his car are really his.
It’s a very thorny question.
I can think of a way to resolve this, but it would be horrifying. E.g., put a scannable code in or on the kid, and have a database of “who is legally permitted to supervise this kid” accessible to the police.
QUOTE: None of which is available to a policeman asking a suspicious man to show that the kids in the back of his car are really his.
True…that’s why I initially stated that if there’s “reasonable” suspicion…“Unfortunately, it could lead to some temporary false custody challenges (if the parents/guardians don’t have easy access to such resources), but it’s likely better to be safe than sorry.
Probably will have instant DNA in the future… Most interesting part will be a dad with his kid … and it turns out like an episode of Maury: YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER! Imagine thinking the kid is yours only to realize your wife or baby mama lied to you?
Disturbing to me was the apparent campaign this past weekend to paint the movie as a “Q-Anon” movie. Saw media outlets calling it “Q-Anon adjacent” or saying Caviezel is a Q-Anon guy or other attempts to malign it.
My thought was, if you’re against a movie based on a true story of a man rescuing 100+ kids from child trafficking… does that make you paedo adjacent?
Exactly. What kind of creep do you have to be to oppose a movie that’s trying to stop child trafficking?
“Paedo adjacent” is a good one.