This paper concerns the interactional dilemma between displaying affiliation and doing being neutral. This dilemma is highly salient in police interviews with child witnesses where interviewing guidelines encourage police officers to take a neutral stance to avoid steering children's stories. In this article, we use conversation analysis to analyze childrens' volunteered accounts of their own role during the alleged offense, e.g., how they resisted. Such accounts make relevant affiliative uptakes such as approval, disagreement, or reassurance that may be seen as nonneutral. Hence, these accounts raise interactional dilemmas for police officers: Should they do what is interactionally relevant or follow the guidelines? Our analysis shows how police officers display and deal with this dilemma and that children may add to it by pursuing something more than neutralistic uptakes. The upshot of this analysis is that attempting to be neutral in interaction may cause apparently undesirable interactional difficulties. The data are from the Netherlands.Because fact finding is key, the interview must be conducted in the most neutral way possible. (. . .) In this context, neutral means: without influencing the witness's testimony, neither in posture, mimic and intonation, nor in the way questions are formulated. No matter the means, influencing must be avoided. (Dekens & Van der Sleen, 2013, pp. 13-14, our translation).An instructor at the police academy explained that police officers should not assume that something has happened because the child's story is still under investigation, and it is the police officer's task to find the truth. 1 The phrase "the most neutral way possible" in the quote acknowledges that being fully neutral is not possible. Elsewhere in the Manual this is made even more explicit by stating that "in practice, it is difficult or maybe even impossible to do an interview in an entirely neutral way" (Dekens & Van der Sleen, 2013, p. 47). Nevertheless, being neutral is prescribed as the police officer's aim and is mentioned as important by police officers and trainers (Rassin & Van Koppen, 2002, p. 26).