“Nothing Can Be Done” Isn’t Always True: A Family’s Fight for Action

Caveat: While this article highlights concerns with how one case was handled, it is not a blanket criticism of policing. In fact, our experience working alongside families across Canada has shown that the majority of police investigators who engage in cases involving the online sexual exploitation of youth are deeply committed, highly skilled, and often go well beyond what is required to pursue these offences.

Police officers routinely navigate complex digital environments, evolving technologies, and significant workload pressures, all while working to protect some of the most vulnerable victims in our country. Their efforts matter, and they deserve to be recognized.

However, acknowledging that strong work exists does not mean we should ignore situations where the response falls short of what is reasonable and necessary. Both realities can exist at the same time. Highlighting gaps is not about diminishing the work of those who are doing it well, it is about reinforcing a standard of care and investigation that every family should be able to expect when their child is harmed online, and when police are now involved.

When a child is targeted for online sexual exploitation, a family’s decision to contact police is about far more than filing a report, it’s an act of trust. They are turning to law enforcement at a moment of crisis, hoping not just for an investigation, but for reassurance that someone is willing to step in, listen carefully, and take their concerns seriously.

Those first interactions carry real weight. For families, this is often one of the most distressing and disorienting experiences they will ever face. They are looking for clarity in the chaos, guidance on what to do next, and a sense that they are not navigating this alone. The tone, the words chosen, and the willingness to engage can either build confidence in the process or quietly erode it.

What can sometimes be missed is that these early moments set the trajectory for everything that follows. When families feel heard and supported, they are more likely to stay engaged, share critical information, and work collaboratively with investigators. When they feel dismissed or minimized, that trust can fracture quickly, and with it, the effectiveness of the response. How law enforcement shows up in those first conversations matters, not just from an investigative standpoint, but from an interpersonal human one as well.

Through the work we do with families across Canada, we continue to see a pattern that deserves attention. Sometimes, parents and caregivers come to us not as their first call for help, but as their second. Their first call was to police, and  their second comes after they leave that first interaction with police feeling dismissed, discouraged, and at times, alone and then phone us for help and guidance. A common message some families report hearing from the police is that little can be done, especially when the offender is believed to be outside of Canada. While jurisdictional challenges are real in the onlife world, the way that message is delivered, and the decision to stop there, can have a lasting impact on a family already dealing with trauma.

Recently, we supported a Canadian family whose 13 year old daughter had been groomed online and extorted into sharing intimate images. When the parents reported the incident, they were advised by an officer who came to their home that because the suspect “may” have been located in another country, there was little investigative value beyond documenting the occurrence and that further investigative time would not take place. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated experience, and it reflects a broader concern we have heard from other families we have worked with as well.

With the information provided by the parents, we began to map the offender’s digital footprint. What emerged was not a one off account, but a network. We identified dozens of platforms where this individual was active, including spaces known for the distribution of non-consensual intimate images, and others social media and gaming platforms that were commonly used by youth. The pattern of behaviour that we located in less that 30 minutes, strongly suggested an individual actively targeting young people for online predation, and that the incident involving this youth and their family was likely not an isolated case.

We shared these findings with the family, along with an important message, “the officer’s belief that the suspect was located outside of Canada is not a conclusion, it is a hypothesis until they proved otherwise, which this officer had not done.” Confirming identity and location requires investigative steps. In Canada, that can include judicial authorizations such as production orders to obtain subscriber information and associated data from platforms like Snapchat or Instagram, both of which the suspect in this case was on. In our experience, these steps have, in some cases, revealed that suspects believed to be offshore were in fact within Canadian jurisdiction, or located in other countries where law enforcement cooperation was possible.

Armed with this information, the family reconnected with the officer and provided them with the information we had located. They advocated for further investigative steps to at least determine where the suspect was truly located. The response they once again received, pursuing a production order was not considered a worthwhile use of police time given the assumption the suspect was likely in another country. When they escalated their concerns to this officer’s supervisor, the decision was upheld. When they requested to speak with the detachment officer in charge, their request to bring the matter to a higher level of command was not accommodated.

At that point, the family was left with few options beyond seeking external oversight. They were guided by us to file a formal complaint alleging a negligent investigation, not out of frustration alone, but out of a belief that reasonable investigative avenues had not been explored in a case involving a 13 year old victim of online sexual exploitation.

To be clear, there are absolutely cases where technological barriers, anonymization tools, or geopolitical realities limit what can be achieved by police. The internet has added layers of complexity to policing that did not exist a generation ago. However, there is a meaningful difference between reaching a dead end after exhausting reasonable investigative steps, and deciding not to take those steps in the first place.

This distinction matters, not only for the outcome of a case, but for the message it sends to victims and their families. When parents and caregivers are told that nothing can be done without those efforts being made, it can feel like a second harm layered on top of the first. It reinforces a perception that reporting may not lead to meaningful action, which runs counter to the public messaging by police  departments that these crimes must and should  be reported.

We understand that policing resources are stretched and that investigators are often managing significant caseloads. At the same time, cases involving the sexual exploitation of youth require a response that reflects both the seriousness of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim. That includes clear communication, demonstrated effort, and a willingness to pursue reasonable investigative avenues, even when the outcome is uncertain.

For parents and caregivers reading this, there are a few important takeaways. If your child is targeted online, report it to police, but also be prepared to ask questions about what steps are being taken, and document your interactions. If something does not feel right, you have the right to push back and respectfully escalate your concerns within the police service or through independent oversight bodies if necessary. There are also organizations, such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, that can help families pursue the removal of images and access additional support. In this case, however, those resources were never raised, shared, or recommended to the family.

This is not about criticizing law enforcement as a whole. There are many investigators doing exceptional work in incredibly challenging circumstances. If fact, we are currently working with another Canadian family where law enforcement is doing a superb job specific to the investigation. This article is about recognizing that in some cases, the response is falling short of what families reasonably expect and deserve. When that happens, it is not just a missed investigative opportunity, it’s a missed opportunity to support a child and family at a critical moment.

In the onlife world, where harm can scale quickly and cross borders in seconds, our response systems must evolve alongside it. Families should never walk away from reporting the sexual exploitation of their child feeling like the system gave up before it even truly began!

Digital Food For Thought

The White Hatter

Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech