Wal-Mart turns in parents over kids bath pics

[southsider2k5]

 

 

http://www.azcentral.com/community/peoria/...art0917-ON.html

 

Peoria parents sue Walmart, state over kids' nude bath pics

 

290 comments by Dustin Gardiner - Sept. 17, 2009 09:29 AM

The Arizona Republic

 

A Peoria couple is suing Walmart and the state after they were accused of sexual abuse for taking bathtime photos of their daughters, according to court papers.

 

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by state 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, the lawsuit claims.

 

Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and did not regain custody for a month while the state investigated, according to their lawyer, Richard Treon.

 

Treon said the images in question were part of a group of 144 photographs taken mostly the family's vacation in San Diego. He said there were seven to eight bath- and playtime photos of the girls that showed a "portion or outline or genitalia."

 

At the time of the incident, the girls were 5, 4 and 1 1/2.

 

It was about "wanting to admire their (children's) beauty," Treon said. "There was nothing sexual about it."

 

Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children, but the Demarees say the incident inflicted lasting harm.

 

In two separate lawsuits, the Demarees say the "slanderous claims" state officials made during the investigation caused them serious economic losses. They also claim to have since suffered "emotional stress, headaches, nightmares, a general feeling of malaise, shock to their nervous system, grief and depression."

 

"This is a parent's worst nightmare," Treon said. "This is a serious incursion on people's lives and privacy."

 

The Demarees are seeking an undetermined amount of monetary damages from both Walmart and the state and have requested a jury trial.

 

One lawsuit names the state of Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General's Office as defendants, claiming that employees from each party defamed them by telling friends, family members and coworkers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.

 

Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Hunter is specifically accused of making slanderous remarks against the Demarees at a hearing where 35 of their friends and family members showed up to testify in support of the couple.

 

Hunter did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Spokesman Steve Meissner for the state Department of Economic Security, which oversees CPS, would not release any reports relating to the Demarees' case.

 

Meissner declined to comment about the lawsuit specifically until his agency received it, though he said CPS has "an obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation" when law enforcement has concerns about a case.

 

A second lawsuit, naming Walmart as the defendant, says the company is at fault for not telling Anthony Demaree that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement.

 

The complaint claims Walmart concealed its policy from Anthony Demaree, causing the couple severe damage.

 

Walmart representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

[southsider2k5]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/parents-...2696&page=2

 

For Lisa Demaree and her husband A.J., it was the hardest time of their lives. It all began a year ago, when the Demarees dropped off some digital photos to be printed at their local Wal-Mart in Peoria, Ariz.

Share

Couple's children taken away after clerk turned over bath time photos to police.

 

"It was a nightmare, it was unbelievable. I was in so much disbelief. I started to hyperventilate. I tried to breathe it out," Lisa Demaree said, struggling through tears.

 

Among the batch of 144 family photos, the developer spotted eight photos that shocked her and she turned them over to police.

 

According to the police report, photos were of the children in provocative positions, with their genitals exposed.

 

"Some of the photos are bath time photos," Lisa said, "but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, laying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute."

 

A.J. Demaree said he could understand why the police were there, but he said the pictures were innocuous snapshots of his kids goofing around, and some of them involved the children being naked.

 

ABC News was able to obtain access to four of the photos. There are still nine other photographs which were not released because the Demarees' lawyer said that the photos were intended for private home use and showing them to outside parties would violate the law for distribution of child pornography.

 

"We have told our girls that they have freedom to be in their home and feel OK about their bodies and their nudity, but that there is a time and a place for it," Lisa said.

 

Police seized numerous videotapes and the Demarees' computers and found more photos and videos of the children frolicking without clothes.

 

"Our family is very open and comfortable. We don't want our children to feel inhibited in their own house," A.J. Demaree said. "If they want to run around in their underwear, if they want to go run and grab an old Halloween costume and throw that on and run around the house, or if they want to run around the house naked and play around, that's what we encourage."

 

The three children, ages 1½, 4 and 5 at the time the pictures were taken, were removed from the home and placed into the care of Child Protective Services.

 

It would be a month before A.J. and Lisa could regain custody of them.

 

A medical exam of the children revealed no signs of sexual abuse, and a judge ruled that the photos were in fact harmless.

 

ABC News legal expert Dana Cole says that in cases of child pornography authorities need to prove sexual intent on the part of the parents, and that after the judge reviewed the case and the Demarees underwent psychological evaluation, it was determined that there was no such intent.

 

From the Demarees perspective, the damage was already done.

 

Lisa, who works at a school, was suspended from her job for a year while the investigation was under way, and the couple spent $75,000 on legal bills. The Demarees have sued the city of Peoria and the State Attorney General's office for defamation and Wal-Mart for failing to tell them that they had an "unsuitable print policy" and could turn over photos to law enforcement without their knowledge.

 

Police and prosecutors insist they did what they thought was appropriate.

 

"It took us a long time to take a picture," Lisa said. "I even worry about them in their bathing suits now, if I get a shot of them in their bathing suits and they're tilting their heads a certain way or their hips are sticking out a little bit, all I think of is 'Does someone think that it was posed? Or how is that going to be perceived?'"

 

Wal-Mart says that these are sensitive allegations, and they are taking the matter very seriously.

 

Steve Meissner, a spokesman for Child Protective Services, released a statement saying, "When a police agency calls us on a matter, we have an obligation to act on that matter. If we refused, the community would be very unhappy with us."

 

The city of Peoria also states that it stands behind the appropriate actions of their officers.

 

"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa Demaree said, "As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."

[StrangeSox]

That is getting pretty absurd.

[G&T]

People who are involved in child porn don't bring pictures to be developed at Walmart. And the power to determine what is and what is not child porn cannot reside in some clerk developing pictures.

 

As a result, the problem here isn't the policy, it's either the police (most likely) or Child Protective Services who should have looked at the pictures and known what they were looking at wasn't sexual in nature before taking the children away. However, I haven't seen the pictures, so there is no way to know how they made their determination.

 

But the reaction shouldn't be unexpected. I worked for a summer in special victims for the DA. Child predators are EVERYWHERE and this stuff is taken very seriously. After that summer, I can tell you that I would never post pictures of a young child online and would never take nude pictures of my child no matter how cute it might be. But most people don't think about that.

[lostfan]

This is bulls***.

[Steve9347]

This is an interesting topic. Things have vastly changed from the days when parents thought it was "cute" to take naked pictures of their kids in the bath. First, one of those kids was 5 years old, that's getting a bit absurd. Second, am I going to take pictures of my kids, naked, to Wal-Mart where some 18-year-old kid could easily rip them and post them on the Web? Have some brains about the entire situation.

 

Calling in child services was dumb, but so was getting those pictures developed by someone at Wal-Mart. Take them to a kiosk at Walgreens or what not.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

If anyone watches Raising the Bar, an episode this past season was about a similar case. It is getting absolutely ridiculous.

[Kyyle23]

This is an interesting topic. Things have vastly changed from the days when parents thought it was "cute" to take naked pictures of their kids in the bath. First, one of those kids was 5 years old, that's getting a bit absurd. Second, am I going to take pictures of my kids, naked, to Wal-Mart where some 18-year-old kid could easily rip them and post them on the Web? Have some brains about the entire situation.

 

Calling in child services was dumb, but so was getting those pictures developed by someone at Wal-Mart. Take them to a kiosk at Walgreens or what not.

 

 

I highly doubt these parents had this in mind when they developed these pictures. Think of all of the bathtime pictures your parents took of you when you were little, people still do that stuff. Now they have to tiptoe around to picture kiosks to get them developed? Thats ridiculous

[BigSqwert]

Who develops pictures anymore?

[mr_genius]

Who develops pictures anymore?

 

people that deserve to go to jail! END OF STORY!!!

[bmags]

5 years old is not that old.

 

lol there are pictures of all four of us boys in my family when I was like 1.5...that made my brother like 8.

Edited September 23, 2009 by bmags

[BigSqwert]

5 years old is not that old.

 

lol there are pictures of all four of us boys in my family when I was like 1.5...that made my brother like 8.

For real. My parents still take nude photos of me.

[bigruss]

I see more fault with Child Protective Services than with Walmart. Walmart employee sees what could possibly be a case of child pornography and reports it, CPS is then in charge of dealing with the situation, and they determined to take the children away.

 

IMO, Walmart is being sued because they have the money.

[kapkomet]

For real. My parents still take nude photos of me.

You are a sick dude.

 

[jasonxctf]

i used to run the photo lab at a Walgreens 10 years ago.

 

at least then, you as a clerk, are "responsible" for reporting anytime of nude, illicit or illegal pictures. Quite frankly, I never dealt with bath time pictures, but I certainly would have let those slide.

 

I did get Spring Break pics and other nudie pics (bachelor parties, etc) I didn't care and just let them fly through. After a close inspection by me.

 

The only time I ever turned something in, was when some kids spray painted nazi symbols on someone's house. Those promptly got a 2nd set made and turned into the Cops who later arrested the kids.

 

I'd turn in the drug pictures (bongs, coke, etc) to the store manager and let them deal with them. (which was nothing)

[BigSqwert]

i used to run the photo lab at a Walgreens 10 years ago.

 

at least then, you as a clerk, are "responsible" for reporting anytime of nude, illicit or illegal pictures. Quite frankly, I never dealt with bath time pictures, but I certainly would have let those slide.

 

I did get Spring Break pics and other nudie pics (bachelor parties, etc) I didn't care and just let them fly through. After a close inspection by me.

 

The only time I ever turned something in, was when some kids spray painted nazi symbols on someone's house. Those promptly got a 2nd set made and turned into the Cops who later arrested the kids.

 

I'd turn in the drug pictures (bongs, coke, etc) to the store manager and let them deal with them. (which was nothing)

 

Way back in the day I worked at a 1 hour photo place. Over the course of 2 years I saw some of the craziest hard core sex photos. We even had a local porn video producer come in to develop photos to use for his VHS covers and magazines. Good times.

[Texsox]

This becomes a definition problem. Trying to develop (pun intended) a definition of what should be reported and choosing to err on the side of caution. Certainly most people will agree that it should not be up to a clerk at Walmart to decide what is, and is not, acceptable. So you give them some standard like "the pictures cannot show a child's genitalia" Seems easy enough. The clerk does not have to make a judgment call, they see a child's genitalia, and turn them over to police. Presumably, to someone with some training and judgment.

 

Then you write a different procedures and laws that outline what should be investigated and what to do while the investigation is happening. It would be a nightmare to discover that a child was being sexual abused in the home while police were investigating, especially if they had photo evidence that something may have been wrong. We'd string them up by their genitalia. So standard operating procedure is remove the child(ren) while the investigation take place. Again, erring on the side of caution.

 

A series of common sense procedures add up to this mess and a nightmare for one family. Everyone doing the right thing, and it ending up all wrong.

[Kyyle23]

This becomes a definition problem. Trying to develop (pun intended) a definition of what should be reported and choosing to err on the side of caution. Certainly most people will agree that it should not be up to a clerk at Walmart to decide what is, and is not, acceptable. So you give them some standard like "the pictures cannot show a child's genitalia" Seems easy enough. The clerk does not have to make a judgment call, they see a child's genitalia, and turn them over to police. Presumably, to someone with some training and judgment.

 

Then you write a different procedures and laws that outline what should be investigated and what to do while the investigation is happening. It would be a nightmare to discover that a child was being sexual abused in the home while police were investigating, especially if they had photo evidence that something may have been wrong. We'd string them up by their genitalia. So standard operating procedure is remove the child(ren) while the investigation take place. Again, erring on the side of caution.

 

A series of common sense procedures add up to this mess and a nightmare for one family. Everyone doing (what they thought was)the right thing, and it ending up all wrong.

 

 

IMO

[Texsox]

I was just thinking about WalMart's role in this. It is probably the best policy for WalMart to always turn these over when they see genitalia. Imagine if they had not and later abuse was discovered? They would have been toasted, roasted, and burned at the stake for that.