Inked up: Couple charged with child cruelty after tattooing kids
Monday, January 04, 2010
Print
Recent posts
I.R.S. weighs in on breastfeeding - kind of - 2/11/2011
Baby Name of the Year ... The Situation? - 12/16/2010
Hanukkah's PR problem - 12/1/2010
Subscribe to this blog
A couple from Georgia have been charged with illegally tattooing six of their seven children. Using a makeshift needle fashioned from a guitar string, prosecutors allege the couple gave five of the kids, aged 10 to 17, cross-shaped tattoos, while the sixth got "mom and dad" on his arm.
A Georgia couple face cruelty charges for tattooing six of their kids with this makeshift needle.
They've been charged with, among other things, second-degree child cruelty, which in Georgia means causing "excessive physical or mental pain."
After being released on bail, the mother, Patty Jo Marsh, told the Atlanta newspaper: "I'm their mother. Shouldn't I be able to decide if they get one?"
Which, in spite of the oddities spewing out every end of this story, raises an excellent point. Parents make decisions all the time that others might find questionable without being charged with child cruelty -- home-schooling and deciding not to vaccinate are two that come to mind.
Setting aside for the moment that tattoos are usually something kids do explicitly without parental consent (there's a story here involving my sophomore year of college and my mother, who happens to be a Jewish dermatologist), this asks an interesting question about the bounds of parental discretion.
Consider a less serious example: A lot of parents pierce their baby's ears? So why the double standard? Is it just that enough people who make laws agree that babies look cuter with earrings? Or that pierced ears are a more accepted fashion statement that tattoos? At issue in the Georgia case seems to be a lack of consent, which seems fishy when you consider the case of infant ear-piercing and a 17-year-old getting a tattoo that, according to his parents, he asked for.
Weird, definitely, but I'm not sure it's criminal.
What do you think? Is this prosecutorial overreaching? Or are the charges justified? Where would you draw the line?
Error parsing XSLT file: \xslt\article-detail.xslt
hahaBy lolz on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 i find everythign about this story funny :D if a parent wants to give their kid a tattoo, i say let them. lots of kids now and days have tattoos and peircings (its called gageing! ever seen it. people every where have holes in their ears half an inch and bigger) i dont see why everyone is making a big deal about this. I peirced my own ears at my house and they did not get infected, now i ave a 3/5 inch hole in both my ears. |
friend of a friend of the authorBy Deb Spinelli on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 I see two issues here. First, the legal issue. My understanding of the law in Georgia is that it is illegal for an un-licensed tattooist to tattoo a minor, regardless of whether the parent consents or not. The most pressing consideration is the welfare of the child. There is high risk to health when tattooing in an unlicensed situation. Whether the parents should be arrested for a presumed obscure law is not valid. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Lack of common sense is also not a defense. A parent who leaves their child unattended in a car is also endangering that child and should be prosecuted. Putting a 10 year old on a riding mower alone, is neglectful. Riding on a mower with your toddler in your lap is stupid. If the child would be injured in those situations I’d bet the parents would be prosecuted. Unfortunately, lack of parenting skills is not a punishable offense (i.e. giving a child whatever they want) but aiding a child to do something that is potentially dangerous and results in injury to the child is child endangerment, in my view. Is it lack of parenting skills or lack of commonsense when consenting to and administering a painful, permanently disfiguring tattoo to a minor? Either way, it seems from the view of common sense and sound parenting this is harmful behavior on the parents part. As far as comparing to ear piercing. This brings up the issue of cultural mores. Although ear piercing (and increasingly almost all body piercing) is acceptable in our society, I can remember, back in the 1970’s, when ear piercing was associated with gypsies, biker gangs and “undesirable” foreigners. When I announced to my parents that I wanted to get my ears pierced there was considerable resistance. I was finally allowed to get them pierced when I turned 16. Back then, there were no “Piercing Pagodas”. One could go to the doctor but the usually scenario was to have an adult with some alcohol, a hat pin and an ice cube to do it. I also remember when the piercing kiosks first started to appear in the malls, they were not the most reliable for sanitation and many who used them got infected, which I’m sure spurred licensing regulation of those places. In some cultures, ear piercing of female babies is widespread and apparently through our melting pot culture in USA this has become commonplace for people of all backgrounds. Along the same lines, tattooing is an essential ritual in many cultures around the world. It will be interesting to see whether our society’s current fascination with tattoos becomes commonplace in years to come In our society, there are numerous reasons to delay the decision for tattooing to an age of supposed maturity. Tattooing is pretty much permanent, it is painful, the growth of the body can alter it, and how the tattoo might be altered by the aging of the body might want to be considered. Generally, in our society, the tattoo image has no ritual significance which would carry through the life of the child so there is no reason for the parents to impose this stigma. A temporary “tattoo” would serve as well. |
another friend!By Renee Myers on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 I also think piercing a baby's ears is probably not the best parental decision. I waited until my daughter told me she wanted to go have it done (She was 6). But at least with ear piercing, years later the child/adult has the chioce of whether or not to wear earrings and can let them close up. A tattoo is MUCH more permanent. and from what I understand MUCH more painful. there should be a law against parental stupidity, but until there is--this is probably the best charge in my book! |
piercingsBy Sophia on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 I am always upset when I see tiny babies with their ears pierced. Yes, it does look cute, but it seems kids should have some say with their bodies. Of course, infant boys getting circumcised have no say, but there's medical authority on the benefits of that. A good age for piercing is when they can take care of the holes themselves. A good age for tattoos is when you are out of the house, making your own money and making your own decisions, no sooner. |
friend of authorBy robert hoffman on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 tattoos are forever, not to mention that doing it at home is probably unsanitary/dangerous to the extent such things are ever sanitary. The charge is probably the best that fits, but the real charge was "how could you do such a stupid thing"Parents have many rights, not this one. |
Dawn
By Dawn on Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Big difference between earrings and tattooing - let's not be ridiculous now. This was by far a poor judgment call on behalf of the parents.