Assuming this is the whole story, in my court: “Dismissed”, followed by a hallway conference with the officer that started something like, “What the hell were you thinkin’, officer?”
Now, the very fact that there was an officer right there to witness the “offense” tells me that this was not the first time this, or something like it, had happened. The Paul Harvey presumption virtually always applies in this kind of situation.
It's what 'we' don't know that makes all the difference. The 'game' of MEDIA.
even if it is dismissed there are court fees that the mom will have to pay.
Again you should be ashame of what you post here and YOU are part of the problem. This “officer” has imposed great costs on this family.
They have to come to court maybe taking time off from work. They have must suffer public embarrassment. Their child is possibly scarred for life. Their time, preferences and future HAS VALUE.
So rather than one GOVERNMENT functionary quietly talking to another GOVERNMENT functionary in the hall, this officer should be called out in open court. He should suffer some of the public humilation he has tried to impose on this family. And of course you are not supposed to be a GOVERNMENT functionary, the court is suppose to be a neutral abiter between the government and the citizen. So once again you have shown you are unfit to be a judge and should resign.
Not necessarily, a happenstance observation is possible, of course, there is also the option that the officer has been watching that boy (and /or other children) with pedophilic intent and seized on the first opportunity to “legitimize” his presence to the public.