LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007 From: Northern New Jersey Status: offline
|
In the state of New Jersey, and I'm sure a majority of other states as well, a parent cannot consent to a 13 year old getting a tattoo. So it doesn't matter if the child wants it and the parent wants the kid to have it, the law doesn't allow them to have it. A minor must be at least 16 years of age to obtain a tattoo with their parents' consent in this state. That said, there is, as several others have noted, a huge difference between allowing your child to have some type of body art/modification done by a PROFESSIONAL and dad just heatin up the ole fire poker and doing it himself. The first issue is the safety and well being of the children, which IS put as risk when dad does this by himself. Tattoos and pierced ears have become "accepted" forms of body decoration. Branding is not there yet. My son received a tattoo for his 16th birthday. He had the consent of both his parents, and both of us were there with him. I controlled how large it was, where he was permitted to have it and what it was permitted to include. Some of that was a non issue because my son had wanted the same tattoo for more than 3 years; a cross with a ribbon and "Nana" written in it in memory of my mother. If he wanted his girlfriend's name, the answer would have been different. So why do I mention that? Because it is easy to try to make the comparison with parents who allow a tattoo or piercing with a father who brands his children on his own. Easily done that is by people who don't have children, feel they can make bold psychological statements (that they lack the education or experience to make) or because of course, in the world of BDSM, it is just so "disgusting" to make a judgement. So luci, no I don't feel it is disgusting to make a judgement based on "little" fact. If all I knew was that someone shot someone on the street, I can judge them a murderer, no problem, but I don't have the facts. A man who feels the need to physically scar his children as a means of bonding with them does NOT have the right to continue to parent those children or to be permitted to spend unsupervised time with them. Angel, the only point you are right on in this one is that it would not be in the state's best financial interest to retry this case. It IS however, in the children's best interest to for children's services to step in and do a thorough investigation to determine the psychological well being of the children and the mental competency of the father. The concept that these children were "brainwashed" by the father to think this was a good idea is a bit far reaching and has no basis in fact. Branding these children, is by definition, abuse. It is far more likely that the children, AFTER THE FACT, and more importantly after the indictment, started to say that they consented out of fear their father would go to prison over the issue, similar to how an abused child attempts to protect their abuser. There are things that can be assumed even with the little information given. This was a much less than amicable divorce, and this father, for whatever reason, was feeling that he was "losing" his children and his role in their lives. It in no way justifies what he did, but I'm sure that all of that was part of his defense and helped lead to the hung jury. Why? Because the climate right now for "non custodial" fathers is how they are all getting a "raw deal," and every deadbeat dad is being presented as a paragon of fatherhood and that jury probably had it's fair share of divorced dads. That is simply logic. At the end though, those kids are scarred for life. There will likely be a civil suit involved to provide the funds to have plastic surgery to remove the scars, and now "dad's" fears about losing his kids will come true, which is a good thing. He can earn his way back to being a father and role model for his kids.
|