or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › A tattooed kid...WWYD?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A tattooed kid...WWYD? - Page 4

post #61 of 153
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

Mandated reporter:  well, you've only learned about this indirectly, right?  You haven't talked to the dad or seen the tattoo?  Things get misinterpreted. The truth is you don't know the true nature of this tattoo. You say your dh and you are friends with the dad.  So go talk to him and get the truth.  Then, I suppose if you felt it was necessary to act, you could remind the dad that this was illegal (has that been established?), and that you're obligated to report it to the authorities, so he might want to start the removal process. 

 

That's the fair, upfront and respectful way to deal with this guy. 


Yes,in this state it is illegal and I think that's what bothers me the most.The fact that(if it's true)the father put his family at risk.He either didn't bother to find out the laws or didn't care.If some teacher,Dr.,coach,etc.sees it and thinks that child tattoo= abuse,they will be required to call CPS.(I read the definitions for abuse in this state and it's a little vague but I imagine there are plenty of people who would think a tattoo would fit the definition.)

 

I don't plan to investigate too much further because really I want to believe it's not true.But because of the relationship between this guy and my husband and other friends,I'm likely to find out,if it is true.

post #62 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

I'd venture that Drs being mandated reporters if it is a real tattoo if you show up with a 7 year old to get it removed it will be reported. Besides the repeated laser treatments used for removal are pretty painful. I'm really disappointed with the attitude of people that this isn't a big deal.


I agree.
 

post #63 of 153

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

I'd venture that Drs being mandated reporters if it is a real tattoo if you show up with a 7 year old to get it removed it will be reported. Besides the repeated laser treatments used for removal are pretty painful. I'm really disappointed with the attitude of people that this isn't a big deal.


I'm not sure that anyone is saying that it's no big deal.  I think almost everyone on here is agreeing that it's a pretty stupid thing to do.... BUT- is it worth ripping this kid away from his family over?   It very well could have been an act of abuse (making the kid get a tattoo against his will), but we don't have enough information to determine that.  And calling CPS based on suspicions, not even knowing if there is a real tattoo or what the circumstances were surrounding it, is insane IMO.  There are plenty of cultural/religious reasons that people might want their children to have a tattoo (just like people pierce their children's ears or circumcise for religious reasons.)  That (in itself) doesn't make them bad, irresponsible, neglectful parents.

post #64 of 153

I guess we will have to agree to disagree because some of those things do in fact make them bad parents in my book.

post #65 of 153


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubliminalDarkness View Post

I would absolutely call CPS. It puts the child at risk of disease. It hurts the child. It permanently alters their body in a way that they are not old enough or mature enough to consent to. Not to mention the child may not have REALLY consented, but rather been coerced. If I asked my 4 year old if he wanted a real Spiderman tattoo, I assure you he would say yes(he loves Spiderman, and DH and I each have many tattoos). But I also know he doesn't know what he's actually agreeing to. And for that matter, neither does my 8 year old. The concept of forever really doesn't mean anything to children. 

 


I bet my 4 yo would want Iron Man, or maybe a bunny rabbit. (I don't plan to ask and put ideas in his head.)

 

Last winter DS grew hair out pretty long (a bit past his shoulders in the back and tuck behind the ears in the front.)  Then last spring Dh talked DS into a pretty short haircut.  For the first week, he was enjoying the attention.  By the second week though, the novelty had worn off.  A person we we hadn't seen for a couple of weeks complimented him on his haircut and he said to me "do I still have a haircut?"  I explained that haircuts didn't go away that fast, and it was going to take a few months for his long hair to grow back.

 

I know that a 4 yo and a 7 yo are really not the same thing, but I still believe that many 7 yo aren't going to fully appreciate what permanent means.

post #66 of 153


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by changingseasons View Post

So it's ok to inject toxins and chemicals into your child's body because the government not only says it's ok but recommends it, but not put something permanent on their skin?  How exactly is that different?  One can leave your child with a life of health problems, brain damage, death.  A tattoo (if done responsibly, with sterile needles) is pretty benign comparatively.  And they CAN be removed, unlike a vaccine.

 

Again- not advocating for either, but I still don't see how this is a CPS issue.  ESPECIALLY since the OP doesn't even know if it's a real tattoo.  What if you heard this story, called CPS on this poor family, and then found out it was a sharpie tattoo?  Would it be ok to put the family through that?


 

Actually, removal is not always possible and rarely complete.  Depending on the persons complexion, the colors and types of pigment used, and the depth of the tattoo there is often some kind of shadow or scarring still visible after treatments.  Removal is a long painful expensive process with mixed results.  

 

The chemicals in tattoo pigments are just as permanently in the body (actually they are specifically chosen to be long lasting) as any that come with vax.  It's actually kind of comparable to getting you DC vaxed thousands of times in some ways.

post #67 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by changingseasons View Post

So it's ok to inject toxins and chemicals into your child's body because the government not only says it's ok but recommends it, but not put something permanent on their skin?  How exactly is that different?  One can leave your child with a life of health problems, brain damage, death.  A tattoo (if done responsibly, with sterile needles) is pretty benign comparatively.  And they CAN be removed, unlike a vaccine.

 

 

Actually, removal is not always possible and rarely complete.  Depending on the persons complexion, the colors and types of pigment used, and the depth of the tattoo there is often some kind of shadow or scarring still visible after treatments.  Removal is a long painful expensive process with mixed results.  

 

 

So about as effective as removing a body piercing, vaccine, or circumcision, right?  That's kind of exactly my point.  They're not much different.  Except that things like vaccines and circumcisions have WAY higher immediate and long-term risks than a tattoo. 

 

And again- I'm not advocating for ANY of those things to be done to children... I'm just saying that I don't think they are something that the government needs to be involved with; it's really a family decision (as long as there's not abuse going on. But a tattoo IN ITSELF is not a form of abuse.)

post #68 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by rere View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

Mandated reporter:  well, you've only learned about this indirectly, right?  You haven't talked to the dad or seen the tattoo?  Things get misinterpreted. The truth is you don't know the true nature of this tattoo. You say your dh and you are friends with the dad.  So go talk to him and get the truth.  Then, I suppose if you felt it was necessary to act, you could remind the dad that this was illegal (has that been established?), and that you're obligated to report it to the authorities, so he might want to start the removal process. 

 

That's the fair, upfront and respectful way to deal with this guy. 


Yes,in this state it is illegal and I think that's what bothers me the most.The fact that(if it's true)the father put his family at risk.He either didn't bother to find out the laws or didn't care.If some teacher,Dr.,coach,etc.sees it and thinks that child tattoo= abuse,they will be required to call CPS.(I read the definitions for abuse in this state and it's a little vague but I imagine there are plenty of people who would think a tattoo would fit the definition.)

 

I don't plan to investigate too much further because really I want to believe it's not true.But because of the relationship between this guy and my husband and other friends,I'm likely to find out,if it is true.


If you are a mandated reporter, and it is illegal where you are, then I think you are legally obliged to report it.  

 

I'm not quite sure what I'd actually do in your exact situation.  There are so many variables: your unsureness, gut feelings about how bad the actual tattoo is, if you think they might do it again or not, over-all feeling if the kid would better off with state intervention, if the CPS/DYFS in your area tends to be over zealous or reasonably sane, etc that make it hard to decide.  It's not like calling would undo what has already been done (if it would, I would say call without hesitation,) but I don't think this guy should be getting a tattoo artist license if he has this little sense, and I would worry that they won't stop at just one tattoo on the kid.

post #69 of 153

I would still like to know what the tattoo is of?  Even if it is small.  You've seen pictures?  Why are you not saying what it is?  It's killing me wondering what in the world you would tattoo a 7yo with.

post #70 of 153

Lots to think about on this one.

I think any permanant body modification done to a normal child's body should not be permitted for any reason.  I think all piercings, tattos and surgical genital modifications should not be permitted on anyone below the age of 18 and that only the individual receiving the bodily modification has the right to consent to it.  (I am not including surgical correction of deformity or malfunction to restore proper function.) 

I think it is abuse of power to place a permanant mark upon a child.  I don't believe that children have the mental maturity and life experience to fully appreciate the repercussions of an action like this.  I think it shows grave misguidance for an adult to facilitate a tattoo for a minor child.

I realize that we live in a culture that condones and socially normalizes and medically supports modifications like ear piercing and circumcision.  It's sad to me that this is the case....but because it is the case, no one would take you seriously if you called CPS to report either of them.  I don't think that is the case with a parent tattooing a child. 

 

What would you think if a 7 year old child walked into a tattoo studio and requested to be tattooed and the artist did it?  Would you report the artist/studio?  Why?  (and let's take the financial motivation out of it in an effort to equalize the situation and say that the kid pulled 3 pennies out of his pocket for the tattoo and the artist did it for him.

 

What do you think of a parent doing it?  Is there any difference between the studio and the parent?  If so, what?

 

If tattooing minors was illegal in my state, and I had first hand knowledge that this occurred, it would be obvious to me that reporting it would be appropriate.  If there were other issues with the parents ability to properly raise the child, it would be a clear cut decision to make a report. 

 

If the issue was just the tattoo, I would want to know the likely actions that CPS would take in the face of a report.  Would they investigate, charge the father, have him arrested, let him post bail and remain with the family? If so, I would not hesitate to call.   Would they remove the child from the home and place him in foster care?  If so, I'd be FAR less inclined to call.  The final determining factor in whether I would call is whether or not I thought the resulting actions of a call would cause more trauma to the child than the tattoo. 

 

Is it possible to call CPS and ask them what the path of action would be if they recieved a report of a 7 year old being tattooed by a parent? 

 

Sometimes it's hard to have clear cut opinions on something because what you see as clear can sure cast a long and very grey shadow. 

 

I am a staunch supporter of bodily integrity and I view the parental consent for bodily modification of a minor to be a human rights violation and an abuse of power.  This is a tough situation.

 

Also, is this parent likely to put more tattoos on the kid?

post #71 of 153

So if a 17 year old walks into a tattoo parlor and piercing studio and says "I want to get my nose pierced", she should be turned away because of an arbitrary age? Why is 18 so magical? A 17 year old can consent just fine and know exactly what they are getting into. Bodily integrity goes both ways. I won't force DD to get any sort of modification, but I wouldn't deny it either because it is in fact her body and her choice, whether she's 7, 17, or 57.

post #72 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

So if a 17 year old walks into a tattoo parlor and piercing studio and says "I want to get my nose pierced", she should be turned away because of an arbitrary age? Why is 18 so magical? A 17 year old can consent just fine and know exactly what they are getting into. Bodily integrity goes both ways. I won't force DD to get any sort of modification, but I wouldn't deny it either because it is in fact her body and her choice, whether she's 7, 17, or 57.



It's not magical, it's practical. Perhaps not all children are as level-headed as your child, not all would make good decisions about permanent choices. My guess is that most people agree that limiting a person's legal rights/obligations by their birth date is limited and flawed. But you can't ask every tattoo artist to look into the mind of every seventeen year old who comes in off the street, to see if that kid is mature enough to make a good decision about getting a tattoo. 

 

I'd feel pretty lousy for my child if I'd let her get a tattoo when she was 7 y.o. and found herself really regretting it a few years later.

post #73 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

So if a 17 year old walks into a tattoo parlor and piercing studio and says "I want to get my nose pierced", she should be turned away because of an arbitrary age? Why is 18 so magical? A 17 year old can consent just fine and know exactly what they are getting into. Bodily integrity goes both ways. I won't force DD to get any sort of modification, but I wouldn't deny it either because it is in fact her body and her choice, whether she's 7, 17, or 57.



I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S. it sounds like lots of states allow piercing/tattooing if the parent is present or signs a consent (although it looks like some states prohibit tattooing minors regardless of parental consent), which is pretty much in line with your thinking, right? (link

post #74 of 153

Here in Oregon parental consent is needed for a piercing on a minor (though they cannot consent to genital piercings, one must be 18), and a person must be 18 to get tattooed. 

 

My Dd got pierced quite young.. had her nose done as a tween, etc.. Had it been illegal even with my consent given, we'd just have found a trusted piercer that was willing to do it illegally.

 

post #75 of 153

I wouldn't do anything.

post #76 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

So if a 17 year old walks into a tattoo parlor and piercing studio and says "I want to get my nose pierced", she should be turned away because of an arbitrary age? Why is 18 so magical? A 17 year old can consent just fine and know exactly what they are getting into. Bodily integrity goes both ways. I won't force DD to get any sort of modification, but I wouldn't deny it either because it is in fact her body and her choice, whether she's 7, 17, or 57.


Sometimes, you just have to pick a line, and stand on it.  

 

Why is the driving age 16 in so many places?  While it's obvious that most 6 yo are neither physically capable nor emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility of driving, there are probably plenty of 15 yo who would do just fine.  On the other end of things, most 26 yo are both tall and strong enough to handle a car as well as emotionally mature enough to be responsible, but there are also 17 yo who are not really ready to start driving.  So why 16?  The answer really is plain and simply that you have to pick something.

 

No there isn't anything particularly magical about 18.  There isn't some huge difference between a 17 yo an 18 yo and a 19yo.  A number needed to be picked.  A line needed to be drawn.

post #77 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnschoolnMa View Post

Here in Oregon parental consent is needed for a piercing on a minor (though they cannot consent to genital piercings, one must be 18), and a person must be 18 to get tattooed. 

 

My Dd got pierced quite young.. had her nose done as a tween, etc.. Had it been illegal even with my consent given, we'd just have found a trusted piercer that was willing to do it illegally.

 



I've been thinking about this long and hard.

 

I don't think allowing a reasonable mature tween to get a nose piercing is a bad idea.  It has only fairly minor risks, and once you take the ring/stud out is pretty unnoticeable.

 

I wouldn't allow my child to get one if it were illegal though, b/c I don't think vanity is a good enough reason to break the law.  There can be serious consequences to breaking the law.  If it were illegal and my child got placed in foster care or juvee (what they do if they don't have space available in foster care) b/c of something lie this it could have serious life long repercussions.

 

When I was young, I smoked MJ.  It was interesting and harmless.  I don't think a teen smoking a little MJ is a bad thing.  I won't be allowing DS to do it though (I know he may go out and do it on his own anyway.)  The illegality of it means that smoking MJ comes with consequences far far beyond those inherent to the actual act.

post #78 of 153

 

Quote:

I wouldn't allow my child to get one if it were illegal though, b/c I don't think vanity is a good enough reason to break the law.  There can be serious consequences to breaking the law.  If it were illegal and my child got placed in foster care or juvee (what they do if they don't have space available in foster care) b/c of something lie this it could have serious life long repercussions.

 

When I was young, I smoked MJ.  It was interesting and harmless.  I don't think a teen smoking a little MJ is a bad thing.  I won't be allowing DS to do it though (I know he may go out and do it on his own anyway.)  The illegality of it means that smoking MJ comes with consequences far far beyond those inherent to the actual act.

I appreciate your comment! :)  I would allow it because I think it's a stupid, overall, law. I break the law with regularity, and in doing so I take risks. I always know the risks though, that's the thing. If the consequence for my underage child getting a nose piercing being discovered was my child being taken away from me, chances are my kid wouldn't want to do it either. Or, alternatively, she'd have taken a page out of my youth book and done it her damn self LOL. But that's neither here nor there. (Actually, timely enough same Dd reportedly DID just pierce her own ear the other day I guess...)
 As the situation was for us, it was legal with consent to pierce, and had it not been we'd just get all underground ninja and do it.

 

My family is, shall we say, MJ friendly? Teens included.

post #79 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnschoolnMa View Post

Right, the illegal part isn't really a big deal to me. I do lots of illegal things with regularity. shrug.gif

 

 

ETA:  Regarding body modifications:  My Dd had her ears pierced at age 18 mo (I think?), Ds did his ears at nearly 3. My dd got her nose pierced at 12, belly button done twice before 16. Does that count too or no?


Yes, this. Illegal? Who cares. Dangerous, reckless, and/or abusive and horrible? That I would call CPS for. This is a grey area.

 

I would not wish the system on any child- what happens in the majority of foster care homes is far worse. Calling CPS for this may be worse for the child, and that is what I presume we care about. I guess it depends on what sort of parents they are otherwise. Is this systemic of recklessness and endangerment that happens to the child regularly, or some weird thing that is not indicative of anything?

post #80 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

So if a 17 year old walks into a tattoo parlor and piercing studio and says "I want to get my nose pierced", she should be turned away because of an arbitrary age? Why is 18 so magical? A 17 year old can consent just fine and know exactly what they are getting into. Bodily integrity goes both ways. I won't force DD to get any sort of modification, but I wouldn't deny it either because it is in fact her body and her choice, whether she's 7, 17, or 57.



It's not magical, it's practical. Perhaps not all children are as level-headed as your child, not all would make good decisions about permanent choices. My guess is that most people agree that limiting a person's legal rights/obligations by their birth date is limited and flawed. But you can't ask every tattoo artist to look into the mind of every seventeen year old who comes in off the street, to see if that kid is mature enough to make a good decision about getting a tattoo. 

 

I'd feel pretty lousy for my child if I'd let her get a tattoo when she was 7 y.o. and found herself really regretting it a few years later.


I don't believe that an arbitrary age limits are ever practical. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Talk Amongst Ourselves
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › A tattooed kid...WWYD?