Parents sue Walmart over kids' bath photos

[Divine Discontent]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_momsatwork/2009/09/parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-photos.html

PHOENIX -- An Arizona couple accused of sexual abuse after taking bath-time photos of their children and then trying to have them developed at Walmart are suing the state and the retail giant.

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit.

The couple's attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn't regain custody for a month while the state investigated.

Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children -- then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 -- but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Just WOW.... talk about ridiculous.

The nude photos they couldn't/wouldn't release I'm sure are their little girls posing nude at bath time, with their parents taking photos and some walmart photo employee wanted to play hero, instead of seeing that the other photos show it was bath time, and nothing more.

There is a video with them being interviewed on ABC at this link that shows some of the photos (the link has nothing to do with the story, but is where I saw the walmart photo story) on the bottom right http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-investigates-facebook-obama-assassination-poll/story?id=8696126

I think people deserve privacy with their intimate family moments. If there was no sensual/sexual touching going on, and there wasn't a series of several dozen nude photos etc, then what the hell is wrong with the walmart nosy photo person (they're nutsos anyhow), and the police guy giving his opinion that the photos are perverse and all the dozens of people who have seen the photos.


I love the comments on the website talking about parents saying, "oh no, I have nude photos of my kids at bath time, I better destroy them or worry about being charged!"

How sad...

[Divine Discontent]

1. down with wallyworld whenever you can!

[Electric Monk]

15. peopleofwalmart.com

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=3686
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=931

etc

[-..__...]

16. That's the ticket!!!

Sue each and everyone you can... especially if they're a vile, inhumane corporation with big fat wallets like WalMart :sarcasm: (I'm a little surprised that the plaintiffs lawyer didn't name the camera and film manufacturer as defendants as well).

WalMart/employees did nothing wrong here (it's worth noting that some states have laws that require photo developers to report any
pictures that could be defined as child pornography).

They're guilty of making a phone call and nothing more.

If anyone is at fault, it's the State, police and CPS.

[Divine Discontent]

19. I think you're mostly right - but knowing people who have worked in photo dept & the post by the DU

member below shows, there are TONS of these types of photos - that walmart employee is a complete MORON. Sue the store indeed! The manager should have told them, "get back to work - stocking diapers - because you're out of the photo dept., dumbass."

[madokie]

2. I'd probably do the same if it was me

walmart is not good for any of us anytime under any circumstances. Hell they've pretty much run everyone else out of business around here, assholes anyway.

[elocs]

3. I can remember when the kids were 1 & 3 and their mom took pix of them in the buff before bathtime

when they were bouncing on the bed. When they came back they had flesh-colored underwear painted on them.

Toddlers will run around naked all the time because they don't care and don't know they are naked. They are just happy. By the time they get a little older they are taught they should be ashamed of being without clothes.

[Deja Q]

4. The employee made no assumptions and called proper authorities. He made the wrong assumption.

You made an assumption too -- even seeing other photos in the batch, WHAT IF THEY WERE STAGED.

Also, if privacy is so important, why didn't mommy and daddy print out all the photos they wanted on their home computer? Sorry, but now it's my turn to make the assumption they own (and know how to use) one.

[Tansy_Gold]

8. Many people who have digital cameras do not have

home computers with photo-quality printers and software.

Just 'cause you do doesn't mean everyone does.




TG

[madeline_con]

12. Maybe because the equipment, paper and ink costs too damn much? n/t

[Touchdown]

24. It used to be.. BUT NOW with the amazing Kodak Easyshare printer

.. you too can have photo lab quality prints right in your own home! And get this! For a fraction of the cost of other ink jet printers!



NOW how much would you pay? Order now for FREE DELVIERY!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing!

[Mz Pip]

5. This is nuts

I think there are a lot of parents (me included) who took pics of their kids splashing around in the tub. Good grief.

It's hard for me to imagine that anyone engaging in child porn would send the pics out to Wallmart to be processed. :eyes:

[Divine Discontent]

6. I know, so pisses me off for them, even though I don't have kids - I can only dare think what

the person who I have on "ignore" said right above your comment - I'm sure it was something ridiculous, insensitive and some psycho-babble baloney that blames the parents - these people had their children taken away for a month, scarring the children & the family unit, for some playful bath photos - it's NORMAL to do these things. I hate when an 'ignore' shows up on a thread I post, I know it's some bs!

Parents taking pics of their own children, a total of 8 photos, where their kids are partially nude at bath time is anything but child porn - and anyone who sees it differently is not too well in the head.

[madeline_con]

14. If you're ignoring a poster, why go on and on about them? n/t

[tularetom]

7. Oh shit the wife and I must be pervs

We have nekkid pictures of both our kids on a bear skin when they were about 6 months old. All you can see is their little bare asses you can't even tell their gender.

Actually they're kinda dumb but they were fun to break out when they would bring boyfriends/girlfriends to the house as teenagers.

We locked them in the safe because our daughter threatened to destroy them after we showed them to one of her pimply faced high school boyfriends.

[Touchdown]

25. My Mom uses mine for extortion.

"If you don't come over and clean out my gutters, then I'll show your NEW girlfriend your bare butt pictures!"

[sasquatch]

9. I heard Michael Savage talk about this a week or so ago and he said it was liberals that did it

In right-wing reactionary Arizona the liberals are the ones that did it.

[tammywammy]

10. Honestly, I think their problem is with CPS

Sure the store overreacted, but CPS could have looked at the pictures said "they're innocent bath pictures" and dropped the matter.

[Chemisse]

11. I really hate the way the whole child porn thing

Has turned sweet, innocent times in our children's lives into something dirty and disgusting.

[armyowalgreens]

13. I worked as a photo technician for 2 years...

I saw many naked photos of little kids. That's what parents do.

It is neither illegal nor immoral.

The employee that "caught" the photos, the manager that called the police, the police, CPS and the state are all fucking asshats.

I hope the parents get a boat load of money out of their lawsuit.

[Divine Discontent]

17. I hope they get millionssssss from all of them - they have scarred their children! Those parents did

not deserve to have their intimate family moments viewed by all those people who have now seen those images. There was nothing sexual, just partial nudity & nude photos of their little ones taking baths! There's millions of those photos around the world. Shame on Walmart & the police, and especially the CPS - wow, took their kids away for a month - such nastiness! That's the only perverted thing in the story.

[malaise]

18. Good

I hope they win

[rucky]

20. I bet they'll spring for a digital camera with their settlement $$. n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

21. Since the pictures were on a "camera memory stick" I'm betting

they already have a digital camera.

Ya think?




TG

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. I find it near impossible to imagine the pictures being bad enough

for CPS to take the kids away for an entire month. Knowing something about how CPS operates here in Indiana, there would have to be something mighty questionable for anybody affiliated with CPS to even consider removing kids over something like what is being talked about here. I just, for the life of me, can't even imagine the thought process that would have culminated in the removal of the children in this case. Weird.
:wtf:

[Orangepeel]

23. Walmart didn't take the kids away from them.

So an employee erred on the side of caution and called in social services. That's what they should have done.

If the photos were nothing -- I haven't seen them, but I'll assume they were nothing -- blame Arizona Child Protective Services. They're the ones who are supposed to be experts.

[tammywammy]

26. Yep, but Walmart has deep pockets. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

30. I know how I'd feel if someone took my innocent photos of my own kids

taking a bath, and then called CPS from a store, and ended up having dozens of people seeing my children's private family photos that weren't meant for others to see! I think that's why Wally needs sued - the losing of the job for 1 year, and losing the kids for 1 month is CPS's fault, but I find great blame in Wallyworld's employees actions that resulted in great suffering to this family in having their private family photos being seen by a bunch of cops & CPS employees for no reason... I'd be beyond ticked, and yes, at Wallyworld too, for specific reasons. I agree, most of the blame goes to CPS.

[tammywammy]

31. Honestly, I would be glad that the store erred on the side of caution

The problem lies with CPS. Walmart didn't take their kids away, CPS did. CPS caused the problems when they escalated the situation, instead of just saying "these are innocent pictures." I'm not gonna blame some minimum wage photo developer that called it in, I'm going to blame CPS since they could have nipped it in the bud right off the bat.

[Divine Discontent]

35. agreed, CPS is mostly to blame & could have ended this. 1 of the staff at WM could've done the same

without showing everyone their daughters naked at bath time! How much more obvious can you get? sad. I'm sure they'll get something, more than likely from Walmart, when it should be CPS for blowing it up into something that cost her job and losing their children for a month (which probably felt like 10 years). That alone is so sickening.

thanks for your thoughts!

[aikoaiko]

28. This is what I think too -- unless there was a violation of Wal-mart policy

Child Protective Services was the cause of the trauma and responsible for making the correct decision.

[Divine Discontent]

29. I thought it was common knowledge amongst people who haven't been locked up

that someone they know, or even their own family has taken pics of their children bathing since the invention of the camera. If all the photo dept employees called CPS on every family that had these types of photos they'd never have time to investigate real abuse claims. They got their kids back, finally, but the damage is done - and the wally world morons (from the photo emp. to the manager) should have used some sense - obviously they were wrong - the kids are back home.


Sue them for showing their private family photos, that weren't illegal, to all those city & law enforcement people that saw their daughters naked. I would.

[aikoaiko]

33. I mostly agree with you and think photo-processors should not be quick to jump the gun

But if photo-processors are required to report "suspicious" photos to CPS, then these things will happen. It the responisbility of CPS to make the judgment to intervene with the actual family.

The Wal-mart employees have the perfect defense. If CPS thought there was cause to remove the children for an investigation after viewing the photos, then certainly the Wal-mart employees had cause to report it.

[Odin2005]

27. Wally-World Morons!

:banghead:

[hunter]

32. I've got plenty of naked bathtub pictures of myself when I was a toddler...

OMG!!! Am I a child pornographer?

[Divine Discontent]

34. OH NOES! Apparently!

:lmao: who knew? right? I thought photos of the little ones you gave birth to were wonderful family art, for the lil' subject & their parents to appreciate, but apparently not!

STEWIE!!!