It has been just over six months since the unexplained disappearance of nine-year-old Andrew from his family’s home in Boise, Idaho. With little progress in the investigation, the case has recently been reclassified by Boise Police as “inactive,” a move that has left the boy’s father, Thomas Hale, furious.

“I don’t care what the paperwork says. My son did not just vanish into thin air,” Hale told me during an interview this week. “The police are giving up because they don’t have answers. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t answers.”

The circumstances of the boy’s disappearance remain baffling. According to official reports, the child was last seen in his bedroom just before 9:30 p.m. on the night of February 12th. When his mother went to check on him an hour later, his bed was empty. No signs of forced entry were found, all doors and windows were locked from the inside, and there were no footprints in the snow outside the home.

Despite weeks of search efforts, including ground teams, dogs, and volunteer groups combing the neighborhood and surrounding foothills, no trace of the boy was discovered.

Boise PD spokesperson Sgt. Miller stated last month that “all viable leads have been exhausted” and confirmed the department had shifted resources to more recent cases. The official status of “inactive” does not mean the case is permanently closed, but Hale says the designation feels like abandonment.

“This was my son’s room,” he said, gesturing at the still-intact posters and toys. “You tell me how someone disappears from here without a sound, without a trace, and then tell me it’s time to move on. I won’t accept that.”

Community support for the Hale family remains strong. Neighbors continue to place candles on the family’s porch each week, and an online fundraiser for independent investigators has raised more than $12,000.

For Hale, the fight is far from over. “If the police won’t keep looking, I will. I’ll never stop,” he said.

It’s a haunting story — not because of what we know, but because of everything we don’t.

—Brooke Byrns