A family's innocent bath-time pics are turned over by a Walmart employee to local authorities as child porn evidence, resulting in the removal of the children from the home for one month.

We asked our Community whether Walmart had the right to involve the police:

Believe it or not, I think Walmart was right in their decision. Better to report it and be safe than let three young girls be abused and taken advantage of. It's not their fault that the police, prosecutor, and child protection services failed to recognize the situation for what it was and act accordingly. -- Anonymous

No. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see what the pictures really were. Taking away the woman's children is just stupid. -- Josh

Yeah, and the worst part is that if these parents win the lawsuit, it will make it virtually impossible for companies to report real instances of child pornography without being subject to civil penalties. It's sad when money-hungry people make it even more difficult to catch those who harm young children. -- Anonymous

Report it to be safe? Give me a break. You know that "report it to be safe" idea has now caused these parents AND their kids a lot of stress and embarrassment. Walmart needs to put common sense on their shelves for the anonymous people who lack it. -- Kristine

I used to work in a photo lab for an Eckerd drug store. Their policy was that if children were nude, whoever was developing had to use their own judgment as to whether it was pornographic or not. If they felt it was, they were to call the police immediately. I agree that what happened was unfortunate, but I'm sure the person developing the pics just thought they were protecting a child. -- Elvira333

They should absolutely report it. I'm sure most Walmart employees are not qualified to determine if something is pornographic or not. That decision should be made by Child Services, who were (at least according to the parents here) completely off base in the case. Keep in mind we haven't seen the photos. We are taking the parents' word that the images were not pornographic. If they had been, the parents would probably say exactly the same thing. -- Anonymous

What the hell? My mom has photos of me in the bathtub too. And I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of kids in the bath on Facebook, for Christ's sake!!! This world is becoming a giant safety rail. Nothing is held lightly anymore. I bet the employee's mom hated her and didn't take photos of her in the bath and now she's mad. -- Taylor

Why would you sue Walmart? They made a responsible decision to inform law enforcement of a possible case of child pornography. Obviously the responding officers felt that there was something inappropriate in the pictures for the case to have gone as far as it did. I have two children of my own and I have "bath-time" pictures, but they are taken in such a way that they cannot be misconstrued in any way. The problem started with the parents using poor judgment in their pictures. -- James

I'm a 71-year-old grandmother and have pictures of my children in the bath, nude in a little rubber pool, etc. I still love looking at these beautiful children and remembering the fun they had getting water all over the place. I also have an ultrasound of my first granddaughter -- I guarantee you, she was nude! What's happening to us? What a shame to spoil a wonderful moment. -- Bryn

Walmart was acting in good faith, based on a bunch of history and law; the parents were doing nothing wrong. Authorities to whom the pictures were shown should simply have confirmed the kids and the parents belonged together and asked them to buy a digital camera. Which begs the question: why would a child porn person, with digital and home computers available, have Walmart develop pictures? Technology has moved beyond the policy. -- bfloxword