Georgia Mom Arrested for Allowing 10-Year-Old to Get Tattoo

Here is another angle.

So, the authorities primary duty is to protect the child, but this is a misdemeanor offense. They are not taking the child away from the mother, they are not removing the tattoo, they are not taking any type of action. (Thank God!)

So, it becomes just an issue of money? They will give her a citation or a fine or something? What is the point of that? If they really wrote this law with the best of intentions, then what the hell good is any fine going to do? Is this basically the same as saying, "You can do anything you want to your child as long as you pay us for it."

So, the issue of liberty, and parenting comes up, but also the intent of the law. What the hell is the law written for? It seems it is just another way to take some money off a citizen?

Originally posted by revmoofoo
reply to post by nofear39

 

I've fostered in the past, but have none of my own as my wife and I are both celibate and looking after my wife is enough work for me everyday. There is no reason to allow a child to mutilate their body on any level. And that's all ink, piercings (and my personal favourite) and brands do...mutilate the person receiving them.

If I ever have kids, I'll be fine with them making a decision to be inked in exactly the same way that I will go with their timetable when it comes to them choosing whither or not to be Christened. But again, they have to be making said decisions with a more mature mind, so I'd say at least 16 (18 is the legal age in my country) before they contemplate such things. After all, I moved out of home when I was 16 as I was considered an "adult" by my Government.

Rev

by the government......... thats the point ...i thought my lad was old enough and muture enough to have a tattoo when he was 14 nearly 15.... hes 16 this year and is top of his class in most things .... his friends have tattoos and thats there parents choice ..... its my choice to let my son have a tattoo not the governments

Originally posted by Submarines

Has it ever occurred to you, that when it comes to another parents children, your opinion is irrelevant? Because it is. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with what the Mother allowed her son to do, she should have the freedom to make such judgements for her children.

So then, according to your train of thought, if I decied I want my 10 year old son to have sex, because he wanted to, or if he wanted to get drunk or to experiment with drugs because he wanted to that it is my call.

So that would be alright then?

Yes. Absolutely. It is your child, and it is your decision about when is the appropriate age to educate them on sex. In many countries kids get married at young ages. In many countries certain drugs are a right of passage. It is none of the government's business until it becomes clear-cut abuse!

Now, suppose you are drugging your child to keep them calm and manageable, and you are locking them in their room. To me that sounds like blatant abuse, but it is the common state for most of the ADD/ADHD kids these days, and it is done with full support of the schools, medical community and government!

So, say one kid does a little peyote at age 12 as a right of passage, and his parents get thrown in jail for it, but some other parents have their kid doped up on Ritalin or some other prescription and they are praised for it?

There is no rhyme or reason in the law now, so the only solution is to get rid of the laws!

reply to post by blupblup

Of course there are times when the government have to intervene.... child abuse cases and drug issues etc.
But mostly I agree.

No.

Its one of those things when you ponder "Where do we draw the line?" When the State began stepping in to "protect" children from child abuse, is when people began losing their rights as parents.

Abusing a person is a disgusting thing to do, and especially to children. But look how far we have come. We sit around dissecting a parents every move trying to analyze whether they are being abusive or not. You can have your children taken away for everything from allowing your child to get a tattoo, to smoking in the car whit your kids in the backseat. And it all falls under the "abuse" umbrella. Any action can be twisted to look like abuse. It is not hard to get emotional reactions from large groups of people. We need to go back to the way things used to be.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think that fining stupid people may make them think twice before doing their next stupid thing. Like the time I got arrested for trying to steal a white van (which I couldn't drive because I don't know how) while I was more drunk than a drunk thing. I learned that day that you should never grab at the door of parked vehicle and use it to get back on your feet and also I learned that if you punch a Police officer in the face, they much prefer to roll you up in a custody mattress and beat you with their batons than charge you for assault...though in my defence, the Copper started it.

I was 18 years old and the beating and the hefty fine kept me from ever making the same mistake again. Now as we can't beat the mother and the tattoo artist, I think a fine and maybe a suspension of the tattoo artists license would be a good second option.

Rev

reply to post by nofear39


The laws regarding body mutilations are there to protect the young and I find it difficult to understand why any adult (especially a parent) would want to flaunt said laws because they think their child is smart and mature enough to handle it. I wish you could meet the people I grew up with. Out of all of us, I am the only one who hasn't had their tattoos removed or changed. This is because I used my adults mind to make an adult decision about my ink designs so that they'd always be valid and hold meaning to me...unlike all the cartoon characters and "tribal" junk (that for the most part isn't tribal or Celtic) that is so popular among the kids nowadays.

Rev

So if the tatoo was something stupid, covering a lot of body, or done against the wishes of a child, should it also be legal? I agree that this is not really an abuse, but the law is there for a reason and OP is overreacting a lot. No harm would be done if the boy waited a few years to get the tatoo.

Children are not the property of the parents, but individual human beings with their own rights. Parental authority must be limited, the question is where exactly to draw the line.

For the record, I'm not an old fuddy duddy (though it sounds like it in my previous posts in this thread) I'm just really sensitive to issues that could potentially point toward any kind of child abuse (all of which is bad if you are a good and decent human being) because of my background/history, so please don't think I'm being deliberately obtuse...I'll let you know when I'm doing that.

Rev

Originally posted by sweetnlow
Georgia is a state full of Inbred's
So goes to figure

Stop being such a jerk. Georgia is absolutely NOT a state full of inbreds.

Although I don't see much wrong with this, it was illegal and she payed the price.

reply to post by revmoofoo


I'm with you Rev!

Forgive me Getreadyalready, but I have to repectfully disagree with you.

I have to say that the law is there to protect the children of idiot parents who have no common sense.

That is one of the main problems with society. Too many people having kids who shouldn't be allowed to breed in the first place. IMHO.

reply to post by revmoofoo

I'm just really sensitive to issues that could potentially point toward any kind of child abuse

That is the problem with letting any outsider try to distinguish what is and what isn't.

In my opinion there is no such thing as "potentially point toward any kind of..."

That is a slippery slope that includes everything from waking them up too early in the morning to letting them stay up too late at night, and anything that could possibly happen in between.

Someone is either physically and emotionally ABUSING (aka, injuring) a child, or they are not. There is no "potential" abuse. If the child is entirely neglected, unloved, or physically injured, then it is pretty clear when help is needed, everything else should not even be considered.

Even in clear-cut cases of real abuse, it would be ideal if extended family would handle the matter internally and keep the government out of it. My brother and I have made this agreement. We've vowed to protect one another's kids from all types of abuse, including from each other! If we cross a line, we'll deal with it. No need for authorities, authorities have never done anything but make matters worse for everyone.

reply to post by Submarines

That is one of the main problems with society. Too many people having kids who shouldn't be allowed to breed in the first place. IMHO.

I entirely agree with you on this point. The problems facing society today begin at home. Too many single-parent households, too many kids left to raise themselves, too many broken families, too little structure and routine available to today's kids.

And, while I agree that many people should not be having kids, I value the foundations of liberty the country was built on above my own opinions. I don't ever want to live in a country where a government decides who gets to have kids and who doesn't! That is far too scary!

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by revmoofoo

 

That is one of the main problems with society. Too many people having kids who shouldn't be allowed to breed in the first place. IMHO.

I second this.

Having children and making a family is a privilege that many see as their right. However we all know someone who has far too many kids and lives off the state, for one reason or another. Or maybe the parent who has a kid with every new man that comes in to her life because she thinks that's the only way she'll keep him. And then of course there's also damaged people like me.

None of the above should be allowed to breed because of what they are likely to breed...more burdens on society or just more damaged people that grow up and perpetuate the same cycle because "It's how my parents brought me up, so it'll be ok for my kids" Which as we all know, just isn't the way to go.

I'd love kids of my own, but I'm not fit to be a full time parent or even be a foster parent anymore, because of the damage that I could accidentally pass on to them...even though all I'd be trying to do is be a good parent.

Rev

reply to post by Destinyone

She is the Mother...He is the Son. Their choice...NOT the governments.

well..yes and no.. we have laws for a reason..

If you believe the above than that mother could teach her child how to drive, and say it is perfectly ok for her child to do so..because she said it was ok. It's her child..afterall.

Thank god the state does put down a few guidelines..because who knows what would happen if there weren't some laws in place.

He could always get a leather bracelet with his brothers name engraved in it and tie it around his wrist and NEVER take it off.

!0 years old is too young to being having a tattoo.. and that was not some small tattoo.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

You can not take your experience and apply it to others in every situation.

1. tattoos are not painful. i have them. they were not painful to me. therefore they are not painful to anyone else, correct?

2. kids get on bikes and skateboards and do some VERY dangerous things on them resulting in MUCH MORE painful things than a tattoo....

the issue of pain is absolutely irrelevant in this.

the issue of your body changes is absolutely irrelevant in this.

what is revelant is that people want to arrest the mother and throw her in jail for this.....when it will serve NO purpose at all. that is not the solution. if what she did is so horrible than force her to take parenting classes. but for her to sit in a jail cell does nobody any good.

edit on January 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

Pain IS an issue. The mom has to stop and think, "This has the potential to be painful. This is a choice of pain. Is this a good choice for my child?" Sure, the kid might not feel pain during the tattoo - although I found it painful - But you don't know that until the needle starts.

Physical body changes IS an issue in this particular case due to the child's physical age. It wouldn't be an issue so much if the child was 16 as it is with 10.

As with all potentially dangerous things (such as skateboards etc.), any parent has to weigh options and make decisions to balance irresponsible choices versus living in a bubble. For example, making the decision to allow skateboarding, but providing your child with safety gear, and being reasonably diligent in following up on their use. Accidents can always happen, but this was a choice.

I stand by my statements that the mother used bad judgement for those reasons. I believe they are relevant to my assertions of her judgement.

But I completely agree that jailing the mom serves no purpose. It was illegal - and ignorance is not an excuse - but jail isn't called for in this case. While I don't think she used good judgement, it came from a place of wanting to satisfy her child's need to remember his brother. Parenting classes might teach her some critical thinking in regards to her child, and that might be a great thing.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I new that we'd find common ground somewhere.

I completly agree with you. That is one of the reasons that my wife and I decided, after we found out about our little oops, that I was going to be the sole bread winner, and she would be home to raise our son. It is tiring, but very rewarding. My little man is now 5, and we have our time every morning and at night before bed. One of the best parts to this is that I am teaching him a good work ethic. He loves going to my other jobs with me and enjoys helping me. In fact, if I don't come home first to pick him up, he gets pretty upset! LOL!

My children have been around firearms since they came out of the womb. Some people might have a problem with the fact that all my kids are able to shoot and are comfortable around firearms but none of those people get to make that decision for me.

The ink on the boys arm harms no one not even himself. While I wouldn't let any of my children get tattoos, I don't see how it is mine or anyone elses right to interfere with his mothers decisions to allow him to mourn his brother how they wish. No one knows this boy better than his own mother. What a waste of everyones time.

I hate to say it but I have a feeling his skin color has more to do with it. Had they been a white family I bet we wouldn't have ever heard about it.

The boy doesn't need a tattoo to remember his brother. He will always remember him. I don't see why it would be a problem to have the boy wait until he's at least old enough to drive, and then if he still wants it, then have at it. I don't believe the issue is whether or not he will regret it. I do think his mother will always be judged in a bad way, regardless of what a good mother she is.
Also, I haven't read all of the posts, but one thing I thought about is this is a growing boy. He is very little and will grow a lot. Won't this affect the tattoo? Maybe stretch out? I don't know. The boy was too young imo.

reply to post by SteffieJo


So what if it does get distorted with age? I don't see how that matters. It's just aesthetics.