Going Parental: Bathtime photos land parents in jail
I’ve been taking photos of my daughter non-stop since the moment she was born. I have always loved photography and I happen to have a pretty cute kid that loves the camera. Her first bath is on video, as well as captured by still photographs. Who knew that what I was doing could have led to her being taken away from me?
Unfortunately for Lisa and Anthony Demaree, that is exactly what happened. Blogs are abuzz and it sounds like the state of Arizona and Walmart are about to pay the price. Lawsuits against both have been filed and rightly so in my opinion.
Taking bathtime photos of their children — ages 5, 4 and 18 months, while on vacation in San Diego, resulted in the removal of their children from their home. Why, you ask? Because a Walmart employee thought the photos were pornographic and called the police.
Clearly, there is a severe distinction between child pornography and parents taking pictures of their kids in the tub or running around naked in the sprinkler on a hot summer day. My daughter is a fan of wearing a tutu and nothing else. This is hilarious to her. She’s three. These are kids! They do funny shit and you’re going to photograph as much of it as you can.
What happened to the Demarees and their children is terrifying. This could have happened to any one of us. The emotional distress and public scrutiny they have had to endure is tantamount to harassment. They were kept away from their children for days and didn’t regain custody for a month. Lisa Demaree was suspended from her school job for a year and both of their names were placed on the sex offender’s registry.
Luckily, no charges were brought against them and the case was ultimately dismissed when the state finally realized they were being complete douche bags. I’m sure the Demarees were ecstatic, no — jumping for joy. Sweet freedom was theirs again — and only at the greatest price imaginable. To live with the fear that your children may be taken from you for just one minute, is to endure a level of torture words fail to describe. To live for thirty days with this feeling? That is a crime, and in this case, the state of Arizona is the criminal. I hope the Demarees get millions. I hope Walmart and the state of Arizona choke on their apologies that accompany those checks.
The government needs to start using its own brain instead of the brain of some random Walmart employee. Go and spend the state’s tax dollars hunting down the real threats out there. There are hundreds of thousands of perverts and pedophiles out there for you to lock up and you choose to go after Ozzie and Harriet? Where is your brain Arizona?
Protecting your child is the most important thing a parent can do. Child pornography is never to be taken lightly and should always be investigated when just cause is found.
Does anyone think there was really just cause here? Did the authorities really view the Demaree’s photos of tub time and think that they were dealing with child pornographers? As a parent, is it possible to fathom the idea that protecting our children has gone too far? As a society, are we partly to blame for this? And as a government, where do you draw the line?
Going Parental appears every Thursday. Walmart employees never seem to appear when you need them.
Latest posts by Jaclyn Roth (Posts)
- The Jessie Books & National Coming Out Day - October 11, 2011
- Parents, prepare to go parental: Doctor faked data linking autism to vaccines - January 6, 2011
- Going parental: iPad — Magic Slate in disguise? - September 29, 2010
- Going parental: Dad boards school bus and screams at bullies — terribly wrong or terribly right? - September 22, 2010
- Going Parental: First day of school! - September 8, 2010
Print This Post
unbelievable how children can be taken away from their parents from bathtime photos! im dusgusted over this! go after the real child pornographer’s!
When I was a child, my brother and I would steal my mothers camera and walk around shooting pictures of random things. There was one summer where we were goofing around and I shot some pictures of my brothers naked hiney – while he was mooning me (whatever – we were 8 & 4). My mother unknowingly dropped the film off at a local drugstore.
A couple days later the police showed up at our door to investigate a report of child pornography. After several embarrassing questions for my brother, mother & I – the police concluded that this was not a case of child pornography. Needless to say my mother never returned to that particular drugstore.
I think it’s absolutely absurd that people cannot distinguish the difference between child pornography and harmless photos. I agree that the governments time can be better managed by attacking the real problem, the real predators.
Good article.
It is interesting that the demonization of peadophillia has been to an extent not often seen with other crimes. People at newstands browsing through the latest copy of Guns & Ammo are not immediately deemed serial killers (although there is clearly something not quite right with them). Amateur elecrtricians and chemists with an account with RS Components are not written off as bomb freaks.
The demonization of child pornography has been conducted with such a hysterical zeal that it has pervaded the lives of ordinary mums and dads just wishing to capture their child’s upbringing. I known parents who are forbidden from bringing cameras to their child’s sports days at school for this very reason.
A related issue does spring to mind here. I spend a bit of time in the UK, and there have been a number of high profile cases lately of children being abused by their parents because “social services had failed to spot the likely signs”. Effectively, the State welfare services were taking the blame (and being sued) for what happened to the children; there seemed precious little blame attributed to the sick parents who were hell bent on abusing their children no matter what State intervention took place. It was the “system” that was at fault for failing the children.
The predictable backlash has been a redoubling of efforts from social services to investigate even the most spurious cases of possible child abuse – to the point that Arizona and Walmart appeared to have already reached.
It seems to be a rather tragic facet of what can liberally be described as the welfare state that all personal accountability is absolved. If there is a breakdown in an individual’s conduct, it is somehow the State’s “fault” for not spotting it first, then taking the necessary measures to have prevented it. Thus we may as well all be suspects, since the last thing the State wants to be is at fault.
As long as this is the case, I won’t be walking past any school playgrounds in the near future, just in case the snipers who’ve already decided I’m a kiddie fiddler go for a head shot.
Here’s thought:
How many pedophiles do you know that would take their pictures to Wal*Mart for developing, in the first place?
Duh! They may be evil, but most of the time, they are far from stupid.
This case is a great example of how many people (a) have NO CLUE what they unleased when they supported the government creating the current sex offender laws.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SAY “THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW.” Pay attention people. There are 650,000 other people listed on the sex offender registry. However a 1994 US Department of Justice statistic says that ONLY 5% of sex offenders commit a new sex offense. FIVE PERCENT!
We have destroyed so many lives because people like George W. Bush built their political careers on unfounded lies. Before he pulled the Iraq stunt with “weapons of mass destruction” he and Karl Rove manipulated Texans into following the rest of the nation down the slippery path of passing RETROACTIVE sex offender laws.
WAKE UP!
I don’t know about the rest of you, but after taking a little penicillin in recent years I am firmly cured of my Republican disease.
Well said! The part I found hardest to believe is that the Walmart employee’s fears were seen as valid before the parents even had a chance to defend themselves. If there had been any logic used in this situation at all, the parents would have been presumed innocent to begin with, the authorities would have talked to them and their kids and found nothing wrong, and the kids would never have been taken away. Ludicrous.
I do not know when Americans crossed the line from the people that wagon trained from coast to coast for 6 months in search of a better life fighting off REAL Indians and REAL threats of death into this society of people afraid of their own shadow?
Sexual abuse certainly happens but do the Kiddy porn producers run down to the local Wall Mart for developing?
Is there no IDIOT alarm or stupidity buzzer installed in the minds of any of the people that pushed this case forward?
If Ever anyone deserved to be sued for MILLIONS it is wall mart and local law enforcement in this case.
When does a picture taken with innocent intent become an illegal image? That is really the question. I am not sure of the definition of child pornography used in the case Lisa Demaree case but South African law does provide a basis for dealing with the proverbial “baby-in-the-bathtub” case. Part of the definition of “child pornography” in South African law is “any image showing the body, or parts of the body, of a person under the age of 18 years, in such a manner or in circumstancves that it is capable of being used for the purpose of sexual exploitation.” An explicit picture of a baby in a bathtub, taken for the family album, will not amount to child pornography. But that same picture posted on a website changes the context, making it now capable of being used for the purpose of sexual exploitation – and endangering the life of that child. Where an image is explicit but does not involve sexual condyct, it is the context of that explicit image that determineu whether or not it amounts to child pornography.
THE “BABY-IN-THE-BATHTUB” CONTROVERSY
INTRODUCTION
Does the taking of a picture of your baby nude in the bathtub amount to the creation of child pornography? This is the question that was raised in the recent A J and Lisa Demaree case in Arizona, USA. The Demarees took a memory stick with family photos for printing to a printing centre in Peoria, Arizona. Included among the photos were pictures of three children, all under five years, partially nude in a bathtub. An employee of the printing centre saw these pictures as child pornography and contacted the police. The police agreed that the pictures amounted to child pornography – “…..the young girl appeared to be posed in a provocative manner…..” Peoria’s Child protection Services searched the Demaree home and took custody of the children for a month while investigations continued. Lisa Demaree was suspended from her school job for a year and the names of both parents were placed on the sex offender register. It was reported that the Demarees spent $75 000,00 on legal fees. The question is when does a picture taken with innocent intent become an illegal image?
WHAT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN TERMS OF SOUTH AFRICAN LAWS
Child pornography – the abuse, brutalisation, torture and even murder of children for the sexual gratification of perverts – is a growing global problem. It is, therefore, a matter of serious concern for governments and civil society. But it is important to understand what is meant, in terms of the law, by child pornography.
South Africa’s anti-child pornography laws are to be found in two Acts – the Films and Publications Act, No 65 of 1996, as amended, and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, No 32 of 2007, usually referred to as the Sexual Offences Act.
South African laws recognise two categories of products that fall within the definition of prohibited materials–
(i) films, games or publications which contain depictions, descriptions or scenes of child pornography, and
(ii) films, games or publications which advocate, advertise, encourage or promote child pornography or the sexual exploitation of children.
The definition of child pornography also includes two categories of prohibited materials–
(i) images or descriptions of a person under the age of 18 years involved in any way in acts or conduct of a sexual nature, and
(ii) images or descriptions of the body, or parts of the body, of a person under the age of 18 years in a manner or circumstances which, within context, amounts to sexual exploitation or is capable of being used for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
In so far as the “baby-in-the-bathtub” issue is concerned, it is the category of “images or descriptions of the body, or parts of the body…..” that is of relevance. Any image or description of a child involved in any way in an act or conduct of a sexual nature is, in almost all jurisdictions and regardless of context, child pornography (or child abuse material). But where the image or description does not involve an act or conduct of a sexual nature, such as an image of the body, or parts of the body, of a child, context will determine whether or not that image would constitute child pornography. Such images, or descriptions, will amount to child pornography only if the image, or description, is within a context that amounts to sexual exploitation or within a context that makes that image or description capable of being used for the purposes of sexual exploitation. And “sexual exploitation” in this context means using an image or description for some advantage, such as financial gain or sexual gratification, such as masturbation. It is, therefore, the context, or the circumstances or manner of its display or distribution, that will determine whether or not a picture taken with innocent intent constitutes child pornography or the sexual exploitation of a child. There is a fundamental difference between an image of the intimate parts of the body of a child in a medical journal and the same image on an Internet child pornography website. It is the context of the image, and not the manner of, or motive for, its creation that will determine whether or not that image amounts to child pornography.
THE DEMAREE CASE
The issue to be resolved in the Demaree case is not whether or not the pictures of the babies in the bathtub were of an explicit nature but whether or not the context suggested the sexual exploitation of those children. There is no evidence to suggest that the Demarees were seeking printed copies of the pictures for any illegal purposes, such as trading them as child pornography. Making copies of such pictures for a family album is not illegal in any jurisdiction. There is no evidence to suggest either that the pictures were posted on an Internet website or were going to be distributed via the Internet, which would have allowed some pervert or paedophile to grab them for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It seems clear, that the police were somewhat overzealous – but, given the fact that child pornography is not only growing exponentially but is involving the abuse and exploitation of younger and younger children, including toddlers, in more sadistic acts of brutalisation and torture, the reaction of the police is understandable, even though not justified in the circumstances.
Iyavar Chetty
September 2009
.
The Demaree’s lawyer released this photo to show the pictures of the girls are innocent.
The police report read, “The young girl appeared to be posed in a provocative manner.” A report issued by Peoria authorities described the photos as “child erotica” and “sex exploitation.”
Child Protective Services searched the Demaree home and took custody of the children for a month while the state investigated. The watched family videotapes and found a few in which the children were playing unclothed. Lisa was suspended from her school job for a year, and both of their names were placed on the sex offender registry. The couple spent $75,000 on legal bills.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=48024#ixzz0Rmij4EP5
It is interesting that the demonization of peadophillia has been to an extent not often seen with other crimes. People at newstands browsing through the latest copy of Guns & Ammo are not immediately deemed serial killers (although there is clearly something not quite right with them).
Huh?
Pedophilia is a heinous crime and should be “demonized” to the fullest extent. Looking at a gun magazine is not a crime, and there is nothing “clearly” wrong with someone who reads one.
Comparing the two is beyond insane.
This case is a great example of how many people (a) have NO CLUE what they unleased when they supported the government creating the current sex offender laws.
While good Democrats like Janet Reno didn’t need laws, she just made up cases of “ritual sex abuse” and railroaded innocent people into prison.
Tomblvd – you misunderstood my comparison.
I was commenting on the fact that simply taking a photograph of a child is – hysterically – construed as a sure fire sign that the person is a likely peadophile.
As you rightly indicate, reading a magazine is not a crime, but my point was (in relation to the original article) that neither is taking a photo of a child.
The latter, however, is somehow deemed a precursor to perversity; the former is just seen as someone reading a magazine.
Chloe, can you explain what you mean by the “demonization of peadophillia”?
Tomblvd, I can.
My original comment was that the demonization of peadophilia has occured to a greater extent than other crimes, to the point where innocent behaviour (a parent taking a photograph of their child) is immediately suspect because “taking pictures of children is what peadophiles do”. Apparently.
Perhaps 1 in every 100,000 people who take a photograph of a child intend to use it in a harmful way. Peadophilia, and child pornography, has been demonized to such an extent that the other 99,999 people who take pictures of children are also suspected of the crime.
In terms of my use of the magazine comparison, perhaps similarly 1 in every 100,000 people who show an interest in guns will go on to be a murderer. Murder, as a crime, has not been demonized to the extent that the other 99,999 people are also assumed to be killers in waiting.
I certainly did not intend to suggest that paedophilia has been unfairly demonized; simply to the extent that harmless and innocent interaction between adult and child is deemed somehow suspect.
I used the illustration of parents being prevented from taking photographs at school sports days for this very reason. Somehow, the assumption has arisen that anyone wanting to take a photo of a child must be of dubious morality.
I use the term demonisation not to suggest that the thing being demonised is wrong, but that somehow any associated action is tarnished. Some other examples (and these are completely random) demonisation of steriod abuse tarnishing athletes – if someone breaks a record, they must be using substances, rather than sheer effort. The demonisation of the fast food industry – if the population are getting fat, then it must be fast food that is doing it, rather than people just not following a prudent diet.
The demonisation of paedophilia – if someone is taking pictures of children, they must be up to no good, rather than just lovingly recording their child’s upbringing.
edit for last comment “I use the term demonisation not to suggest that the thing being demonised isn’t wrong…”
The demonisation of paedophilia – if someone is taking pictures of children, they must be up to no good, rather than just lovingly recording their child’s upbringing.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word “paedophilia”. Your use of it in this context is completely wrong. Nothing any of the parents did is in any way related to pedophilia.
Indeed, that is where the problem lies. Innocent pictures of naked children is not pedophilia, and the word has no business being brought into the discussion.
:Chloe ducks to avoid toys being thrown from Tomblvd’s pram:
:Chloe picks up her ball and goes home:
Chloe – I’m with you on this one. And I have to give you credit for just walking away.
I’m not as tolerant as you. I have more to say.
Tom – you’re getting caught up in semantics. The irony is that you are arguing with Chloe, who in actuality is agreeing with the fact that pedophilia is pervasive and disgusting. Her point, I believe, is that our society has simply gotten out of control and begun to demonize every photo taken of a child. We have all become suspects and it’s terrifying. You can use words like demonization, pedophilia, etc. It doesn’t matter. What this all comes down to is the fact that innocent people… let me re-phrase – innocent PARENTS were treated like pedophiles, kept from their children, invaded, terrorized and forever scarred because they simply took innocent pictures of their children. Things have gone too far and without the proper brain power CLEARLY necessary to make these calls. The state of Arizona chose to listen to a person who ran the photo lab at a Wal-Mart. Notice how they haven’t released the identity of this person? It’s suspect. I imagine some uneducated moron, with a GED (yeah, go ahead – I’m stereotyping – I’ve been in enough Wal-Mart’s to make such an assumption) who had a bad day and phoned in a complaint. Why should I assume anything else? They won’t release anything about the person.
So the brilliance that is the Arizona State Department took the word of some jackass that works at Wal-Mart over the word of clearly loving parents.
Stop fighting with Chloe over language and definitions. It’s boring and it’s a distraction.
Innocent people were treated like criminals. Point blank. That is what happened.
I am now picking up my ball and heading home as well.
Chloe – care to have a catch in the morning?
Cheers.