The greatest nightmares communities face always center on the tragedies of children lost and harmed, abused and unprotected, left behind when they should be our ultimate concern.

Those tragedies tend to present the most urgent of questions, ones that wind up met with a litany of unfortunate, often uncomfortable, answers. Unfortunately, after the discovery of 15-year-old La’Niyah Clark’s body in Wilkes-Barre on Feb. 21, our region is confronting a difficult self-reflection. What can we possibly have done to make sure this didn’t happen? What can we do to ensure it never does again?

It is understandable that some in her family questioned the Wilkes-Barre Police Department’s methodical approach to searching for Clark after they reported her missing Jan. 17. That will help get to the bottom of the first question.

The second one poses a lofty goal that might be much more difficult to achieve, but we believe that in their time of unimaginable tragedy, Clark’s loved ones proposed a common-sense policy that could help police make more clear-cut decisions on when to solicit public help after children go missing.

Clark’s family and friends criticized Wilkes-Barre Police for legitimate reasons that would frustrate any family in the same situation. They said they reported Clark missing on Jan. 17, but didn’t hear from a detective for another five days. A missing person alert for Clark was posted on the department’s Facebook pace on Jan. 23, and a news release was sent to the media on Feb. 10. It was a slow process.

But in a petition they circulated on the website change.org, Clark’s family members pointed out the legitimate reason why no Amber Alert was issued: There was no credible belief that Clark was abducted, which is the primary stated reason to issue the alerts.

“Although she was a minor, deaf, and vulnerable — with documented safety concerns including an active Protection From Abuse order, the statutory criteria for an Amber Alert were not met,” the petition reads.

In response, Clark’s family and friends proposed the creation of an alert for missing children that would supplement the current Amber Alert system. “LaLa’s Law” calls for a Missing & Endangered Child Alert that would be disseminated by police under a specific set of circumstances:

A minor is believed to be at credible risk of harm.

There are documented safety threats, protective orders, or prior criminal concerns.

The child has a disability or communication barrier increasing vulnerability.

Law enforcement determines immediate public awareness could aid recovery.

On their face, any one of these four criteria should stand as reasonable grounds to trigger public notification of a credible missing child report. We join the petitioners in asking those who represent Northeast Pennsylvania in the General Assembly to begin the process of considering a law that could both help local police departments navigate gray areas in current law and ultimately perhaps prevent another case like the Clark tragedy down the road.

This should not be taken as a criticism of our current Amber Alert law, but as a way to improve it. The goal of any legislation mandating the public reporting of the missing always should be to ensure children in trouble get the help they need, regardless of the strictures imposed by the letter of current policy.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children website, the program’s goal is to “instantly galvanize the community to assist in the search for and safe recovery of a missing child.” What it has done for abducted children, a law based on the principles proposed by Clark’s family could do for more missing and endangered minors. It would close gaps the Amber Alert doesn’t cover, and provide police a more complete set of criteria and procedures covering more different types of missing minors.

Many have wondered whether potentially sending more and more missing, endangered and abducted child alerts to the community ultimately would lead to a public less attentive to these important alerts. It’s an interesting theory and legitimate concern.

However, we believe that it is a theory worth testing, a necessary gamble in what should be an unending fight to protect our community’s most treasured assets in any way possible.