...or so certain people would have us think. Why, you ask? I came across an article on a news website that totally floored me. The basic gist of the story: about a year ago, a couple from Arizona took their photos to Walmart to be printed. While processing the photos, a Walmart employee felt that some of the pictures of the couple's three children (girls ages 5, 4, and 18 months), which were taken at bathtime, constituted child pornography. They turned the photos over to the police, who then went to the couple's home and searched it, while Child Protection Services seized their children and put them in foster care. They got them back after a month, but not before both mom and dad were labeled as sex offenders and mom was suspended for a year from her job. There is now a legal battle going on between the parents and the state, the city, and Walmart for the pain and suffering caused this poor family.
Someone help me out here. Who DOESN'T have pictures of their kids, or even pictures of themselves from when they were little, taken during bathtime? I can think of several pictures we have of Joshua's little bum (he has a very cute one, I have to admit). Would this be considered child pornography? Why does nudity automatically mean pornography? Okay, I admit, not all of the photos have been released, and the police claim that the ones that have not been made public include "provocative poses" by the girls, who they claim could have been "sexually exploited." But that does NOT justify doing what they did to this family!
I don't understand America. Sometimes I think our society is waaaay too loose with its morals, way too immodest in its dress, and pornography is much too accessible. But then I see a story like this, and I think...um, wow. Now they're being much too uptight, much too overprotective. Were the photos pornographic? Maybe to one or two people, but I think most out there would agree that naked bathtime photos of small children are found in almost every household in America, and that this small piece of "evidence" of "child exploitation" was not nearly enough to justify what took place. It scares me that someone's perception of what I am doing with my child could allow government officials to come to my home and take him away. I don't like it, plain and simple.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
8 years ago
5 comments:
I saw this on the news yesterday and was really shocked! There are bath pictures of me out there, and plenty of James. I'll tell you what though, I'm never going to develop photos at Wal-Mart!
That's crazy!!! Of course we all have bath time shots! I am always very careful as to cover up the private area. Bun cheeks are always so cute on babies. Good grief!
Well from a child welfare stand point, we never know what the pictures really were and if they really were provocative, then it sounds like what needed to happen did. If not, then that is just crazy. It seems to me that if they got the kids back after only a month, it sounds like there wasn't anything going on, at least that's what it would mean in Utah's child welfare system.
Thanks for chiming in, Tara--I knew you'd have a better perspective, based on what you've seen and experienced in your line of work. I don't think CPS is the enemy at all. I was just really shocked that this kind of thing could happen. You're right, we don't know what the specific pictures look like...it just upset me, that's all. It scares me how much power the government has to interfere with my family.
Nice that we have our own computers and printers now, yes? I'm glad we can print our own little ones and not worry about Walmart, if we choose. Just use caution, you young parents! It's sad that this day and age things have gotten so mixed up! Just love your little ones, and protect them from evil.
Post a Comment