Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

IMO, the only POS part of this is the state of GA. Somehow, a child-initiated tattoo to honor a brother killed in an accident is "child abuse." The kid's school went ape-[bleep] when they saw the ink. State law supposedly dictates that the only person allowed to "force" a tattoo on a child is a licensed doctor.

I'm not a fan of tats, but this goes beyond the pale, IMO. First, the kid asked for it, and had a good reason. Hence, there is NO force. Second, the mother had no real reason to know the law about that herself. Third, the tattoo parlor (also under investigation) SHOULD have known about it, had the law posted in a conspicuous place, and had the artist inform the mom. IMO, the onus is on the shop (the applicable law is in their line of expertise), not the mom. Outside of sex and drinking, the only real issue (for me) is parental consent vice age of consent. If a kid can legally get an abortion with or without parental consent, then surely a kid can get a memorial tattoo WITH parental consent.

Georgia is out of control.



http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... DfyeVdZcLA

A school-teacher friend of mine made analogies to the car and smoking age of consent laws (which just about everyone knows about). Even if one didn't know for sure, just these analogies could have been motivation to discuss it with an eye to postponing it until 18 (presumably with the kid's own $$, a motivator in itself). Sure, the lady might be considered dumb. But I still think that the major problem here is with the parlor, which should be expected to know the laws that affect their practice. And I hope that the tat is mentioned in the kid's school records so that this isn't raised ad nauseam every September when a "new" teacher is "outraged" by this. It could look as if the kid is getting a new tat every year, furnished by a parent gone amok, when in reality it was a one-time deal seen many times by new people who have no idea what's gone on before.