The screenplay does not equate the movie. They don't actually adapt that into the movie, where he is only "not a child". Since this is Hollywood, I don't know how much it counts for that Ezra Miller was 23 during filming (but it certainly is indicative to me that they meant to adapt Rowling's description).
The problem I think began this is that there is some uncertainty around his age in the movie (both the screenplay) and the fact that the dynamic of Grindelgraves and Credence reads a lot to people as grooming. Since most people's conceptions of grooming is restricted to a binary system of adult/child you get this reaction. But there's a thing like adult grooming. I personally thought Rowling gave us a very clear example of adult grooming and I do see where the reaction comes from. It probably was a bad adaptive choice not to make it explicit considering the relationship dynamics of the character.
The interesting question here you revealed is how do you decide the canonicity of Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them. Does the screenplay with an explicitly adult Credence take precedence over the focalized adaption that has an unclear age for Credence? The screenplay, I believe, was released after the movie and is subsidiary honestly.
Maybe it beckons a more reflective attitude to Credence age? Perhaps a disclaimer for which age Credence is placed at if it isn't explicit in the story? It would be interesting to hear from the OP if they actually consider this a problem.
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
The problem I think began this is that there is some uncertainty around his age in the movie (both the screenplay) and the fact that the dynamic of Grindelgraves and Credence reads a lot to people as grooming. Since most people's conceptions of grooming is restricted to a binary system of adult/child you get this reaction. But there's a thing like adult grooming. I personally thought Rowling gave us a very clear example of adult grooming and I do see where the reaction comes from. It probably was a bad adaptive choice not to make it explicit considering the relationship dynamics of the character.
The interesting question here you revealed is how do you decide the canonicity of Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them. Does the screenplay with an explicitly adult Credence take precedence over the focalized adaption that has an unclear age for Credence? The screenplay, I believe, was released after the movie and is subsidiary honestly.
Maybe it beckons a more reflective attitude to Credence age? Perhaps a disclaimer for which age Credence is placed at if it isn't explicit in the story? It would be interesting to hear from the OP if they actually consider this a problem.