What happens when a local police department and a state child protective services agency overreact and abuse their authority? Posted on 03/10/2013 6:10:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
What happens when a local police department and a state child protective services agency overreact and abuse their authority?
In one such case, Walmart ended-up being sued.
The story began in 2008. Lisa and Anthony Demaree of Peoria, Arizona (a suburb of Phoenix) visited a vacation destination that’s popular among Arizonans – San Diego – and took their three young daughters with them. When they returned home, they brought photos of their then 5, 4, and 1 ½ year old girls to a nearby Walmart store to obtain prints.
It all seemed pretty innocent productive. But some of the Walmart employees who saw some of the “bath tub photos” of the three little girls believed that they were seeing child pornography, so they contacted the local police.
Officers at the Peoria Police Department were concerned about child pornography, as well, so they contacted the Arizona Department of Child Protective Services. And shortly thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Demaree had their three daughters taken away from them for over a month.
"Some of the photos are bathtime photos," Lisa Demaree told ABC News at the time, "but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, lying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute."
After several weeks of the children being in state custody, and after several weeks of court appearances and appeals, a county superior court judge ruled that none of the photographs of the Demaree’s daughters were “pornographic.” Similarly, a medical exam revealed no signs of sexual abuse. Thus, the girls were returned to their parents.
It seems like a happy resolution to a family’s worst nightmare. Yet the damage is still real, as the couple's names went in to a central registry of sex offenders, and, as Ms. Demartee told ABC News, “we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as memories go.”
In 2009, the couple sued the city of Peoria and the State Attorney General's office for defamation. They also sued Walmart because, according to their lawsuit, Walmart had failed to disclose to their customers that they had an “unsuitable prints” policy wherein if store employees discovered objectionable material coming from their customers, they would be compelled to report the incident to law enforcement authorities.
A federal judge has already sided with Walmart in the matter, but now the Demaree’s have appealed their case to a higher court and an outcome is pending. And while the damages to the Demaree family are tragic, here’s another fact: the damages to Walmart are tragic, too.
The idea that Walmart would have an “unsuitable prints” policy is quite reasonable. The company itself could be legally liable for handling illegal materials, were they not to hand-off suspicious items of this sort to law enforcement authorities.
The failure here lies with those who wield the force of law. The store employees may have over-reacted, sure. But the superior court judge’s decision also tells us that both police department personnel, and child protective services agents, were a bit too eager to take children away from their parents.
The Demaree’s damages are no doubt real and tangible. But unfortunately, Americans all too often assume the absolute worst about private businesses, while giving a “pass” to government agencies, even in the face of egregious behavior.
I would never take nude photos of my children and have them developed by a commercial developer. Actually, I would probably not even think about posing my daughters sans clothing and snapping photos of them.
But that’s just me.................
Today’s culture has perverted and poisoned purity.
The article though is mainly about the DCS
There is a case in my town of parents filing a lawsuit against the DCS because they took the children away from these parents without filing a petition after 72 hours as required with the court. You can read the article here
In the Sheeples Republic of FloriDUH, by teh State’s own statistics, a child removed from a “Sexually abusive” or “physically abusive” family is more likely to be abused while in custody of the State.
Allowing state employees to take children and send the bill to the taxpayers effectively means the taxpayers are being charged to support a program paying Chester The Molester to abuse children.
Bad Chester The Molester!
WORSE STATE CHILD SERVICES program!
Government can’t raise a child. The Founders and our ancestors knew that.
Commies have infiltrated our culture and we have accepted the commie concept that the child belongs to the State.
Wrong!
Evil does exist. Accept that and learn to also accept the limitations of government.
Or, you will be ruled by InferiorPersons from agencies beyond number.
Think I jest? Consider that in many places across America, NGO Animal Whacko’s with Gub’ment agreements have authority to enter your property at the point of a gun if ‘animal abuse’ is ‘suspected.
Dog Stealers/Dog Killers with guns.
In all fairness, there are a large number of parents out there who sell pictures of their clothed children, sometimes in “sexually suggestive poses”, which is why the child porn laws now integrate “sexually suggestive poses” as illegal, even if clothed.
While they can often get away with posting such pictures on the Internet, they provide contact information so that perverts can special order nude pictures.
But this is mostly in a huge gray area in the law, where grotesque things like “child beauty pageants” are legal, as are more mainstream things like children’s underwear advertisements. And some children’s clothing manufacturers even make “sexualized” clothing for very young children.
No, a thong bikini bottom is not appropriate for a 5 year old. Nor is sexually implicit text on children’s t-shirts.
The bottom line is that Walmart was in the right, had an obligation to report, and the authorities carried out the law as written.
I think anyone with at least an ounce of sense can distinguish between adorable baby photos and photos that are a little less innocent, shall we say.
My point is that in this day and age, I don’t think it’s a good idea to take nude photos of your three daughters who have passed the infant stage, and take them to a commercial film developer.
I think you’re asking for trouble—as happened here.
Note to the Demaree’s, get a digital camera if you really want these types of “cute” pictures.
Parents have the choice to refuse to buy these sexualized clothing for their children and if they don’t, or give in to their kids, then they are just to stupid to have children
Those photos are what you show to your daughter's prom date while she's standing there!
Mark
I think that a mother who would do that needs to be plugged into the wall for a bit of electroshock therapy.
A “large number” of parents do this? Really? Really? Tell me what percentages of parents actually do this. And what exactly constitutes a fully clothed “sexually suggestive pose”? I guess I can imagine such, although I shudder to do so, but then again a pedophile is likely to see sexual imagery in even the most innocent of child photos. So do we ban all photos of children lest some pedophile get’s off on it?
While they can often get away with posting such pictures on the Internet, they provide contact information so that perverts can special order nude pictures.
Um. For one thing, this is not what happened here, they did not post the pictures on line. For another thing I have relatives who have professional photos taken of their children and I can order prints on line but they are not “publically available” or viewable to just anyone who wants them, they are only available to those that the parents authorize and to whom they send a link.
But this is mostly in a huge gray area in the law, where grotesque things like “child beauty pageants” are legal, as are more mainstream things like children’s underwear advertisements. And some children’s clothing manufacturers even make “sexualized” clothing for very young children.
No, a thong bikini bottom is not appropriate for a 5 year old. Nor is sexually implicit text on children’s t-shirts.
Again, where did it state anywhere in this article that these parents dressed their children in “sexualized” clothing or thongs or bikini bottoms or sexualized poses or sold or otherwise gave or attempted to give access online to photos, BTW very innocent and non-sexual naked bath photos to pedophiles?
The bottom line is that Walmart was in the right, had an obligation to report, and the authorities carried out the law as written.
The Wal-Mart employees may have felt it appropriate or were compelled to under Wal-Mart policies (this isn’t the first case of over zealot Wal-Mart employees calling the cops on parents over very innocent naked baby photos) but the police and the CPS could have and should have quickly looked into the matter and dismissed it without taking these children away from their parents for over a month. And despite getting their children back after a judge ruled the images were not pornographic and medical examinations (which BTW were in and of themselves were probably traumatic and borderline abusive given the circumstances) found no evidence of sexual abuse, the couple's names STILL went in to a central registry of sex offenders. Is that justice?
My niece has pictures of her completely full frontal head to toe naked preemie triplets taken of them while they were in the NICU. She has them on her refrigerator along with dozens of other non¬-naked photos. She likes to look at the photos of them as preemies to remind her of what a miracle and what a blessing they are, especially on those days when 4 year old triplets are quite a handful. And not long ago my nephew’s wife emailed me pictures of her 4 and 2 year old girls naked in the bathtub playing with the “bath paints” I bought for them. I guess we both probably both broke some sort of law, her for sending them to me and me for receiving them – I should no doubt be put on a sexual predators list. (sarcasm)
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” - Ayn Rand – Atlas Shrugged.
I really wasn’t trying to compare these things with the current situation, but instead, pointing out the legal environment and what it targets. And why these parents were inadvertently caught up in it.
As far as “a lot of parents” selling pictures of their children, it is perhaps somewhat more common than the number of parents who enter their children in child beauty pageants. They are in it entirely for the money.
It is a large gray scale. Auditions for child actors may get hundreds of entrants, even when it is known that a movie plot involves the rape and murder of the child, like The Lovely Bones (2009). In all fairness, a lot of stage parents absolutely reject parts for their children that involve even the implication of nudity or sex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.