a 2 inch initial of his first name and if I heard right it was done by a family member

I would call it a bad parenting choice not child abuse. I would agree that I don't think parents should let their 9 year old child get a tattoo. I would also have to say just because I don't agree with the parent choice dosen't make it child abuse. If a child wants a tattoo and their parent agree to let them have one I would say it was a bad choice but I can't call it abuse. If we start call abuse everytime a parent make a choice someone dosen't agree with we would have a lot of child abuse cases.

Interesting point of view, Booger. I would agree completely that it's a bad parenting choice. But having gone through two tattoos of my own as an adult, I would have to imagine there was some pain inflicted upon that child to get the tattoo. Maybe that's where the idea of abuse comes in?

Lilith with your justice system experience, what do you think a judge might say about it?

I'm not sure and in this instance I have been stepping back and just sort of scoping out the whole scene. I see and hear things in my job that people would honestly not believe.

Actually, I think I would believe it...I just wish I didn't have to... :eek:

I can see you're between a rock & a hard place here...I'm not backing down from calling it abuse, but whether it rises to the level of bringing children's services in is a whole 'nother...child abuse can take so many forms that don't leave marks or bruises (that show)... :sad:

People are so incredibly fucked up. And they breed.

It is no more appropriate than sticking plastic boobs onto a nine year old girl who wants to look like Pamela Anderson.

That's idiot parenting IMO. What ever happened to telling your kid no?

Some things seem really simple to say no to, "Hey, dad can I get a tattoo?" "No."

Hell I thought the grade school kids I saw at the pool this year with their lips pierced had complete morons for parents, but at least piercings can grow closed.

And you're on the front line of dealing with the consequences of those two facts.

I feel your pain, really I do...

I think I'm in a agreement with you Booger. If a tattoo (inflcts pain, is permanent, has no function other than cosmetic) is child abuse, then so is child ear piercing and (dare I say it?) circumcision. A nine year old has more opportunity to refuse it than does a baby whose parents make either of the other decisions.

Ear piercings can be removed and, in most cases, close up with little or no evidence they were ever there. Personally I don't think small children or babies should have their ears pierced. Circumcision has pro and con arguments, (anyone that wants to discuss that subject, please do so here ), but I'd say in general it's not done for cosmetic reasons.

My opinion on tattooing children is that is shouldn't be done. Now there may be places in the world where it's culturally significant and been in practice for years. I can understand that. When a guy in the USA just decides one day that, 'Hey, little Johnny's man enough to sport the family crest, I'm going to have my bro come over and do him with that homemade tat gun.'* Well, in my eyes that's abuse.


*Overdramatized to make my point

That is exactly what happened.

:banghead: