That is scare-mongering. This case had nothing to do with a reasonable report of child abuse. We all know that we have an obligation to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse.

We know that the faster grass grows the more you dilute the uptake of trace elements.

The most profound one is you cannot make a report without a foundation. You cannot make an unjustifiable report because the consequences to an individual who was totally innocent are too significant.

My dad had limitations. That's what my good-hearted mom always told us. He had limitations, but he meant no harm. It was kind of her to say, but he did do harm.

The fact of the matter is, if you haven’t been in an abusive relationship, you don’t really know what the experience is like. Furthermore, it’s quite hard to predict what you would do in the same situation. I find that the people most vocal about what they would’ve done in the same situation often have no clue what they are talking about – they have never been in the same situation themselves.
By invalidating the survivor’s experience, these people are defending an image of themselves that they identify with strength, not realizing that abuse survivors are often the strongest individuals out there. They’ve been belittled, criticized, demeaned, devalued, and yet they’ve still survived. The judgmental ones often have little to no life experience regarding these situations, yet they feel quite comfortable silencing the voices of people who’ve actually been there.

Who said 'please' that made you hate the word so much?"
Andrew gazed at him in silence for a minute. "I did.