Critink

There are hundreds of thousands of tattoo pictures online. Maybe millions. But with this rise in popularity, it's getting even harder than ever to tell the difference between a quality piece of art and a piece that will fade into a black smudge. Learn to tell the difference now so you don't have to learn the lesson the hard way.


lupinbandit just alerted me to [this recent story] about a mother tattooing her 11 year old daughter: A heavily tattooed mother is in trouble with the law after giving her 11-year-old daughter a tattoo. 30-year-old Odessa Clay says she didn’t know that tattooing a minor is illegal even with a parent’s permission. Clay gave her daughter a small, heart-shaped tattoo near her right shoulder. She says the girl asked for the tattoo. Havelock Police charged Clay with tattooing a person under 18. Clay used her own tools and said she numbed her daughter’s arm. She says she tattooed the outline of a heart and didn’t fill in the entire shape. The mother says she believes an ex in-law reported the tattoo to retaliate against her. Clay is due in court on the tattooing charge next month. The charge isn’t child abuse or neglect. It’s simply tattooing someone under 18. In theory, this law is the same for a 5 year old tattooed by a stranger as it would be a licensed tattoo artist giving their 17 year old a birthday present. Really, this could be about a custody battle—but, from how this articles starts with “a heavily tattooed mom,” I think we’re likely to see it spun in a way to equate having tattoos with bad parenting. Was this stupid on the mom’s part? In my opinion, absolutely. But should we be enforcing the enforcement of this law? I don’t think so. So what’s your take? Should they charge the mom with something else? Drop charges all together? Repeal the law or ad it to other states? What do you think????

lupinbandit just alerted me to [this recent story] about a mother tattooing her 11 year old daughter:

A heavily tattooed mother is in trouble with the law after giving her 11-year-old daughter a tattoo.

30-year-old Odessa Clay says she didn’t know that tattooing a minor is illegal even with a parent’s permission. Clay gave her daughter a small, heart-shaped tattoo near her right shoulder. She says the girl asked for the tattoo.

Havelock Police charged Clay with tattooing a person under 18.

Clay used her own tools and said she numbed her daughter’s arm. She says she tattooed the outline of a heart and didn’t fill in the entire shape.

The mother says she believes an ex in-law reported the tattoo to retaliate against her.

Clay is due in court on the tattooing charge next month.

The charge isn’t child abuse or neglect. It’s simply tattooing someone under 18. In theory, this law is the same for a 5 year old tattooed by a stranger as it would be a licensed tattoo artist giving their 17 year old a birthday present. Really, this could be about a custody battle—but, from how this articles starts with “a heavily tattooed mom,” I think we’re likely to see it spun in a way to equate having tattoos with bad parenting.

Was this stupid on the mom’s part? In my opinion, absolutely. But should we be enforcing the enforcement of this law? I don’t think so.

So what’s your take? Should they charge the mom with something else? Drop charges all together? Repeal the law or ad it to other states? What do you think????

  1. silent-by-nature answered: The girl is only 11, she can’t truly consent.
  2. riahsky answered: fakkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeee
  3. satchelk answered: I don’t think she deserves a big punishment for making a dumb mistake like that. I don’t see how this could possibly be construed as neglect.
  4. papa72 reblogged this from critink
  5. coloursofextraordinary answered: Where I’m from (Ontario, Canada) tattooing a minor is legal with parental consent and presence, although certain shops set their limit at 16.
  6. licenciadocantina reblogged this from critink
  7. tattooswillmakeherdance reblogged this from critink
  8. littletwigs answered: Realistically-what is charging the mother going to do? Nothing. It’s just going to hurt the kid more. A parenting program is a better option.
  9. claudischmaudi answered: I dont agree with giving a small child a tattoo, but the law is ridiculous, because there’s a difference between a 17yearold and an 11yearold
  10. miikatz answered: I would say drop the charge, the law serves a purpose, but it still gives the meida a chance to shame the inked community.
  11. filinka reblogged this from critink and added:
    In no way I would let my 11 y.o. get a tattoo. Not before they’re 16 at least.
  12. yossdillo answered: I think the wording was bad in the article, but really? I think they should just follow due process and not make it into a custody thing.
  13. j8iel8ie answered: There is nothing wrong with giving your child a tattoo of a tiny heart! dont people have something better to do than fuck someones day up?!
  14. lupinbandit answered: it’s about this backwards law in NC where you can’t do anything until 18 even with consent, which i find dangerous, pointless, and insulting.
  15. politeyeti answered: Absolutely charge her. 1. She’s a scratcher, so NO right away, and 2. the kid can’t meaningfully consent. That’s why we have age restrictions
  16. val-siorc answered: retaliation for “Clay filed police report against daughter’s paternal grandfather.” I care way more about child abuse by gpa then then tattoo
  17. honeysunk answered: This isn’t a body mod argument, but a consent one - the child can’t consent to changes made to HER OWN body. Absolutely hold mom accountable.
  18. mattligg reblogged this from critink
  19. asterflowersinaconveniencestore answered: In my state, a minor can get a tattoo with a parent’s consent; obviously, she consented. The only thing that worries me are the health issues
  20. the-zombie-bandwagon answered: To be honest I’m not strictly sure. On the one hand, she is kind of a dumbass. On the other, the law is kind of dumb.
  21. miss--kris answered: Definitely do not think this is child abuse; dumb, but in no way child abuse if the kid asked for it.
  22. cannotescape-f-e-a-r answered: I think they should charge her tattooing a minor, and thats it. Maybe have her take a parenting class, too? Just for extra measure?
  23. jackiepappillion answered: I think the charge makes sense. It’s very straightforward.
  24. iamradness answered: Charge the shit out of the mom. And dont try and play its the same as piercing a babys ears (I dont agree with this either) holes can heal.
  25. imsimplyconfused answered: The problem is, was the child well educated about tattoos? If she cannot make good, long term decisions, it should not be
  26. irejectyour-reality answered: Charge the mom. The little girl couldn’t truly consent.
  27. rusethefox answered: I figure if the kid is physically well and mentally stable there shouldnt even be a trail, the mom should be let off and the charges dropped.
  28. libertademente reblogged this from critink
  29. zezecat reblogged this from critink and added:
    I think it’s about protecting the child, more than anything. Piercing your ears and getting a tattoo is world’s apart. I...
  30. blackcandid reblogged this from critink
  31. gamblersandgallantry answered: Yes, we should be enforcing these laws. If it wasn’t for the parenting angle this would be another post about scratchers.
  32. fuckyeahjerm answered: What about parents that take their children to unsanitary mall outlets like Claire’s and get their ears mauled with a piercing gun?
  33. tattootheglobe reblogged this from critink
  34. flyingplasticbag answered: she didn’t hurt her. if parents can make decisions about their kids circumsision, or religion (baptism..), or earrings, why not this?
  35. theoddplatypus answered: Should be charged for child endangerement, she bought her own tools and clearly knows nothing about laws, I assume the same about diseases.
  36. sphygmic answered: Piercing a young child’s ears is fine, so why not this? I don’t think it’s great, since it’s permanent, but that’s opinion - not law.
  37. pgreener answered: I think with parent’s consent, it should be fine. The daughter asked for it, the mother agreed, the charges should be dropped.
  38. vagueflirtations answered: Tattooing her daughter to me isn’t too different from gentile parents circumsizing their sons. If she was safe and didn’t hurt her, no foul.
  39. d-lionz answered: i think dont charge the mom, but implelemnt a law that specifically states the rules of tattooing a person.
  40. inkedhog answered: These charges should be dropped. This just seems like people hating on tattoos.
  41. criss-crossed answered: unfortunately i think the story swings it so tatooed people have a bad rap. but i think local law should be inforced. hopefully nt too srsly.

61 notes | Posted Oct 7, 12 #tattoos #laws #tattoo law #tattoo laws