The Hughes et al. paper is critiqued generally and in specific areas. The weak nature of the authors' empirical work is discussed along with their enigmatic writing and vague and incorrect use of references, and their simultaneous use of sweeping statements of opinion and narrow analytical focus. This review examines the authors' errors regarding differential response (DR) and child safety, confusion of child safety and family risk, incorrect portrayal of DR family assessments, incomplete review and analysis of inconsistency in pathway (track) assignment, incomplete analysis of external validity, and mistaken interpretation of field experiments. A short essay on the purpose of DR is presented along with other literature which readers are encouraged to read and interpret for themselves.