A THREE-YEAR-OLD SOCCER PLAYER, A POLICE CALL AND THE TRUTH WE MUST NOT SACRIFICE

I have followed the story of the three-year-old Black boy whose participation in a children’s football (soccer) game in Winter Park, Florida, ended in controversy and a police response.

I have also followed the public reactions.

And I have some questions.

At 56, after nearly three decades of legal practice focused on family, education and child safeguarding, I have learned not to surrender my judgment to the excitement of the crowd.

I am an egalitarian before anything else. I believe in the equal dignity of every human being.

I am interested in truth, not convenient narratives.

I do not subscribe to sensationalism. I do not belong to anyone’s agenda.

JUSTICE CANNOT BE BUILT ON AN UNEXAMINED NARRATIVE.

The story circulating widely suggests that police were called on a three-year-old because he was Black, exceptionally talented and outperforming other children.

But what do the available records establish?

According to the Winter Park Police Department, a youth soccer official requested police assistance following a disagreement involving league officials and the child’s parents.

The organisers alleged disruptive conduct by the parents. The parents disputed that account and maintained that their son was being treated unfairly.

Police described the matter as civil. Nobody was arrested or formally trespassed.

These are important distinctions.

POLICE WERE CALLED FOLLOWING A DISPUTE INVOLVING ADULTS. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS ESTABLISHING THAT POLICE WERE CALLED ON A CHILD BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.

WHAT LED TO THE DISPUTE?

The available reports suggest the controversy did not begin with the parents.

Concerns were reportedly raised about the child’s play: his playing time and how long he kept the ball. On police body-camera footage, the league official describes him as a good player but says he “pushes too much.”

The child was removed from the game. His parents objected. The official then called police, describing a parent as “unruly” and “disruptive.”

The parents deny any misconduct. They say their son was removed simply for playing too well.

These facts are in the public domain. I cannot look away from them. They raise legitimate concerns.

What does “pushes too much” mean for a three-year-old?

Was he pushing other children, or simply better at keeping the ball?

If other parents complained, what exactly were they complaining about?

If a child dominates the ball because he is skilled, why should that be a problem? In the adult game, nobody is penalised for being too good.

These are questions an honest review must answer.

I understand why a parent would be upset to see their child removed from a game. That frustration is human.

I take my own son to sports. There have been moments when I did not like how things were going. But I have learned that my response matters, because my child is watching. Seeking to understand serves him better than confrontation.

I am not these parents, and I do not presume to judge them. But every parent, myself included, carries the responsibility to model self-control, especially when we feel our child has been wronged.

BUT CONCERN IS NOT CONCLUSION.

Even if the child was treated unfairly, the available facts do not establish that he was removed because he is Black.

Unfair treatment and racial discrimination are not the same thing. Each must be proven on its own evidence.

So the questions remain.

Was the child treated unfairly?

Was the decision to restrict his participation justified?

Were the parents’ objections reasonable?

Did the organisers respond proportionately?

Was racial discrimination involved?

These are questions requiring evidence, not conclusions to be supplied by public outrage.

The organisers deserve a fair hearing. So do the parents.

And the child deserves something even more fundamental.

HIS BEST INTERESTS MUST NOT BECOME A CASUALTY OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Here is where my concern deepens.

The child’s face, name and images have travelled widely across social media, accompanied by allegations that he was discriminated against, victimised or traumatised.

But has the alleged abuse been independently established?

Has anyone demonstrated that this level of public exposure is necessary to protect him?

UNICEF has published ethical guidelines for reporting on children.

They emphasise dignity, privacy, accurate context, informed consent and protection from potential harm, including stigmatisation.

Let me be clear, because on this point I will not equivocate.

Where a child is the subject of abuse, or of an allegation of abuse, violence or distress, the settled principle of child safeguarding and protection practice is to conceal the child’s identity: the name, the face, the image and anything else that could identify them.

The child is already carrying the weight of what happened. Exposing their face to the world, even in the name of defending them, adds a second injury. It is re-traumatisation.

There is no part of child safeguarding and protection practice that supports identifying a child in crisis. None.
I have seen this mistake made before. When children in America survived violence, their faces were carried across major news platforms in the name of campaigning on their behalf. I said then what I say now: you do not do this.

The same applies when a parent films a child’s distress, during so-called discipline or otherwise, and posts it for the world to see. It is condemnable.

A CHILD IN CRISIS NEEDS PROTECTION, NOT PUBLICITY.

A CHILD DOES NOT LOSE HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY BECAUSE ADULTS BELIEVE THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE ON HIS BEHALF.

A three-year-old cannot fully appreciate what it means to have his identity permanently associated with a national controversy.

What happens when he grows older?

What happens when these images and allegations continue circulating long after the adults have moved on?

And why must his face be repeatedly displayed before we can discuss the conduct of the adults involved?

I am not accusing his parents of wrongdoing.

Neither am I defending the organisers.

I am asking that we separate the issues.

A legitimate complaint deserves investigation.

An allegation of discrimination deserves serious examination.

But neither automatically establishes that discrimination occurred.

And neither removes our responsibility to safeguard the child while seeking answers.

WE CANNOT CLAIM TO DEFEND A CHILD’S DIGNITY WHILE REFUSING TO EXAMINE HOW OUR OWN ACTIONS MAY AFFECT THAT DIGNITY.

This is part of a larger concern I have about public discourse.

We increasingly appear to choose our conclusions before examining the evidence.

Once an incident fits a popular narrative, asking questions can be mistaken for taking sides.

I reject that approach.

I will not call discrimination what has not been established as discrimination.

I will not dismiss an allegation merely because it remains unproven.

And I will not treat a child as an instrument for advancing any adult agenda.

There have been further developments.

On October 28, 2026, the incident was addressed at the Winter Park City Commission meeting. A community advocate asked the city to review whether i9 Sports should continue using city-owned athletic facilities.

Mayor Sheila DeCiccio indicated that the city would consider the matter once the organisers’ review was complete.

Commissioner Craig Russell expressed disappointment in the conduct of the adults involved and raised the standards expected of youth sports programmes operating on public property.

No decision to suspend or terminate the league’s use of the facilities was announced.

As of November 4, I have not seen a publicly released final report establishing discrimination, abuse or wrongdoing by either party.

These developments reinforce my position.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADULTS ENTRUSTED WITH CHILDREN DESERVES SCRUTINY. BUT SCRUTINY MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH A FINDING OF GUILT.

Let every review of this matter be thorough, impartial and transparent.

Let the evidence speak.

Let legitimate grievances receive appropriate attention.

And let the child’s dignity, privacy and best interests remain central throughout.

THE TRUTH DOES NOT NEED SENSATIONALISM TO BE WORTH DEFENDING.

Neither does justice require us to abandon fairness.

A word is enough for the wise.

Shalom.

Enlightenment is Superior to Enforcement®