Imagine going on a vacation and taking pictures of the entire trip. When you return home, you take the memory card to your local Wal-Mart to get the pictures developed. Instead of getting your pictures, you are accused of taking inappropriate pictures of your daughters and they are taken into protective custody. Can’t imagine that could happen? It did to Lisa and Anthony Demaree of Peoria, Arizona.
The couple took photos of their three girls, ages one and a half, four and five while they were playing and in the bath. How many people have pictures of their kids in the bath together? Most everyone. With three kids, it is common when they are younger to throw them in the bath together. My eight and three year olds still love to take baths together. They play and are so cute, I wouldn’t think twice about snapping a picture of them covered in bubbles or with soapy mohawks.
The Wal-Mart employee that was processing the photos noticed that about seven of the 144 photos showed a “portion or outline or genitalia.” The employee turned this in to the police as a possible child pornography case. The police then took the children into protective custody. The children were not allowed to see their parents for several days and were not returned to their home for a month.
The Demaree’s are now suing both Wal-Mart and Peoria, Arizona. The Wal-Mart lawsuit states they did not disclose they had an “unsuitable print policy” and could turn any photos over to law enforcement. The suit against Peoria states the couple was defamed because friends and family members were told they had “sexually abused” their children by taking pornographic pictures of them. The attorney for the Demaree’s, Richard Treon stated there was nothing pornographic about the pictures. The photos were mainly of the the family vacation to San Diego. “This is a parent’s worst nightmare. This is a serious incursion on people’s lives and privacy.”
Now from a parent stand point, I am outraged. I take pictures of my kids all the time. My kids, when they were smaller, loved to be naked. My kids aren’t fully naked, but I easily could have taken a picture of a topless four year old, or three year old running around in a tee shirt and underwear. Could I get turned in for having these printed? It is definitely something to think about. I will be much more careful about what I send out to print, regardless of how cute the picture may be. Maybe it’s time to invest in a good picture printer for the house!
Comments
kara
September 20th, 2009 - 10:50:25 AM
What about Sally Mann or Nan Goldin?
Rach hade
September 21st, 2009 - 4:45:03 AM
Thank Goodness for smart people who DON'T Shop at Walmarts. This is what happens when you allow a non American store to do business here. These poor parents I have pictures also of my kids in the tub, topless on the beach and running naked through out THEIR home. How old was this ignorant employee? How old was his stuporvisor who oked calling the cops? Glad of law suit hope they go the distance and not settle out of court!
Mom Of 4
September 21st, 2009 - 3:26:07 PM
This is the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard of, I have pictures of all 4 of my children naked in the tub and running around bare butt when they were little. What parent doesn't have the very same thing ? I hope this couple and their children get MEGA MILLIONS from this and that the children and parents are able to overcome the mental anguish they have been through because of some BONEHEAD $ 7.50 an hour employee. I personally would love to write a letter to the agency that agreed to remove those babies from their parents just to show support. They need to worry about the kids in this world who are really being abused and leave the hard working parents who are raising their children alone.
Jacobus deRottmann
September 21st, 2009 - 7:47:38 PM
We have gone from a country that justified almost anything a parent wanted to do to their child 50 years ago, to one in which the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme and EVERYTHING is abuse in someone's mind. Simple nakedness, the natural state of humans, has become some kind of sexual "abuse". And we have more actual abusers than nations where nudity is more accepted as normal. Wal-Mart considers it their responsibility to call the cops if they think they see a crime in the pictures. Sometimes that helps catch real criminals, but don't expect your privacy to be respected, and if something COULD be taken out of context and used against you, assume it will be. Go digital, keep it at home and don't spread it around freely, even by email. Big Brother is watching. With an attitude. Yes, I think Wal-Mart failed to exercise discretion here and so did the cops. However, it has nothing to do with "what happens when you allow a non American store to do business here". Wal-Mart was born, bred and still is in Bentonville, Arkansas, USA. Even if they have become a China Outlet store. It has to do with pervasive "abuse" paranoia, and with a puritanical attitude toward the human body.
Guytano Parks
September 22nd, 2009 - 9:00:47 AM
This is clearly a case of making a MOUNTAIN out of a (nonexistant) mole hill. Wal-Mart must be more responsible in regards to WHO they entrust as qualified to make judgements which could ultimately be shown to be erroneous/misguided. Before this innocent situation escalated from A to Z, a simple medation could/should have been conducted. Real criminals are treated better. How often we hear: details of this case will not be revealed...yada, yada, YADA! *TO ALL OF THE AUTHORITIES INVOLVED IN THIS VERY DAMAGING AND UNJUST TREATMENT OF THIS FAMILY: I HOPE YOUR ASSES ARE SUED OFF!!!
Kelly
September 22nd, 2009 - 9:37:01 AM
how embarrassing also considering it was some loser who works at walmart
Karla
September 22nd, 2009 - 9:39:01 AM
The Person working at walmart was probably trying to find some glory in their sad minimum wage life
Guytano Parks
September 22nd, 2009 - 11:48:27 AM
Per another poster's comments: YES, everyone should get their own photo printer. Everyone who compiles/registers a list of desired/suggested baby shower gift items (or ANY other type of shower; hell, ANY type of shopping) COULD/SHOULD state that NO ITEMS FROM WAL-MART ARE ACCEPTABLE. Everyone else should go out of their way to have ALL of their photos developed ANYWHERE ELSE other than Wal-Mart.
Poor Walmart!
September 23rd, 2009 - 7:14:12 AM
There's a great deal of lameness in this article, but I don't think it's all coming from Walmart. Sure, the Walmart employee should've had the common sense to differentiate between child pornography and what's not. But with all do respect, what if it really was such a case? Should this employee not be praised for taking appropriate action against something he or she thought was suspiscous? It's the corporation as well as the Arizona law enforcement that should be held responsible for not having the brains to determine what the appropriate action was and as a result overreacting to an employee that was simply following protocol. Now comes the point about whether or not the photos can be considered as 'pornography.' Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass, but why is it alright for a parent to take photos of their four year olds in the tub, and not alright to do so of their 16 year old? I am a parent myself, and I love it when my kids are playing in the tub with soap mohawks and the such, but NO I do not take photographs so that the rest of the world can see my children naked. Have common sense people, if you're going to take a photo of something, there is always a chance of it getting into the wrong hands. Even more so if you send the data to a third party like Walmart to get developed. Snap responsibly, and don't go blaming others for things that you could've avoided on your part. For God's sake, if you want a pic of your kid naked, have the decency to develop it yourself or not develop it at all!!!
me
September 25th, 2009 - 12:04:17 PM
There’s a legal obligation to report suspicious photos but where’s the mandate to train & certify the employees and the investigators so that they are qualified to make a proper distinction between a crime and a stimulus response.
Mandated Reporter
September 27th, 2009 - 8:13:15 PM
A mandated reporter is expected to report anything they deem as child abuse. Right or wrong in their assumption, the WalMart employee did their job and is legally protected as a mandated reporter. This all went wrong with child protector services, they are trained and suppose to determine abuse. The neglect behavior falls with CPS...not WalMart. All photo processors are mandated reporters by law, if their pictures were actually pornographic, and he/she did not report it, they would lose their job, and potential serve time in jail. Those that are NOT mandated reporters have not a clue as to the legal obligations held by reporters. This family went through a horrible experience, CPS was likely neglectful, but WalMart....like them or not....did what they were suppose to do.
jilm
October 1st, 2009 - 9:28:01 AM
ridiculous. good for them...i hope wallyworld pays for their Harvard education