Presuming the parents innocent, the scenario could be:
Noon: Where's J? Hey, Big Sister, go look for her.
Then the family proceeds with their day, not particularly worried but noticing she's gone.
Dinnertime: You never found her? We'd better look around ourselves.
Walk around the neighborhood, asking neighbors if they've seen her. They still think she's wandered off but not necessarily in danger. As the sun starts to set with no idea where J is, but in denial that something bad happened, they decide authorities should be called.
WHY a child placed that call baffles me, and the only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that they STILL assumed the child would show up after a day of fun romping around. But, they called LE "just in case" J really was abducted or injured somewhere.
I just have a feeling, based on the father, that they really expected her to show up at any minute and he sort of thought calling 911 was unnecessarily panicky. (I don't agree with him, but that's the vibe I get from him. He is not a "helicopter parent.")
I'm on the fence about them, though leaning toward thinking they were neglectful but not involved with harming their child. I reserve the right to change my mind.
FWIW, I also had a childhood (1970s) where we were free to roam around all day and didn't check in until we were hungry. We did however, all run home when the 9pm whistle in our town blew. That was everyone's curfew. It was a childhood spent mostly outdoors, in all kinds of weather. Looking back, I have great memories of that freedom, but am also sort of amazed at it. Child-rearing norms have changed a lot since then. I didn't give my own children the same freedom my parents gave me.
. Sad, very sad.
