Way to go Walmart...no seriously, this is ridiculous (did I spell it right ) Let me know if the site doesn't work.
http://www.parentdish.com/2009/09/21/in … parents%2F
These types of stories amaze me. What happened to common sense? Oooo good idea for a hub!
it's amazing that the state can come in and take someone's children away from them - children obviously well cared-for and yet little kids who are obvious abuse cases and who are in the system already are ignored until they get beaten to death by their mom and mom's boyfriend.
I'm sure worse pictures than that go through walmart every day. Why would they pick on them like that? Gosh, I'm happy with a camera phone because they would probably be upset and label me a sex offender if I took it to walmart because I took pictures of my son's bath time after his first birthday, trying to scrub off the frosting from his cake.
That is terrible!!! He is right... so many parents have similar photos of their kids. I have pics of my daughter like that when she was a little baby. It's just stupid what some people do to others for no reason.
I can't believe it even went to court. What damage it will have done to that family and especially those children. This is a great example of how social services are sometimes more abusive than those they think they're "helping". Total A-holes!
Think the pendulum has swung way to far the other way! When I was small (back when the dinosaurs still walked the earth LOL) there was no real protection for children, and now we have the photo police! Unbelievable!
Cheesy peesy. I guess I better hide all the pictures I took of my son when he was an adorable baby at bathtime.
This is past ridiculous and on to just pathetic.
I think the vast majority of cases when government takes custody of children are as ridiculous as this one. It all starts with the notion that somebody but parents can know better what is good and what is bad for their children.
This is why absolutely refuse to support any cause that says it is to 'protect' the children! There are laws in place to protect abused children, but they are rarely used. The only ones that suffer are the innocent. The ones who lose their children are the ones that are trying hard to do what is right. Those that do not care are given in home 'training' and then left alone.
Yeah, they are supposed to be protecting. They could of been doing something productive like bringing in a parole violator or something instead of taking these people to court.
Much of the time kids of innocent parents are removed, while kids who should be taken are not. (Haleigh Poutre, a little Massachusetts girl whose case became famous nationwide, was left with a horrible, adoptive mother/bio aunt after 17 incidents were reported to DSS. It wasn't until Haleigh got beaten into a coma with a baseball bat that people figured out she wasn't, at adults in the case said/believed, "hurting herself".) Oh - and we only knew about Haleigh because DSS wanted to get her removed from life support because doctors said she'd always be in a vegetative state. The courts didn't allow it, and now, although she has brain damage, Haleigh can feed herself and do a few things.
Then we (in Massachusetts) started hearing things like, "Well, we can't always know" and "Western Mass doctors and social workers aren't as 'expert' as those in the Boston area." Is there any wonder people who can't/won't trust people in the government to "be expert" and "know"?
This is the "nanny state" totally out of control. They did much more harm to those kids by "removing" them from their home for a month than any picture ever did. I agree with jiberish - pathetic!
There's often no common sense in a case like this. Considering what the pictures were, even if they wanted to investigate what would really make much of a difference if they left the children with their parents until they talked to the parents? I mean, worst case, if the parents were actually taking porn photos, the risk would be that they'd take some more. At the point, what real difference would it make? The parents weren't being accused of beating the children. What, exactly, was the emergency in removing them first and investigating later? (I'm not defending kiddy porn and saying it doesn't matter, by the way - but this is a different situation, and they could have used some common sense even if they couldn't immediately be sure.)
It had to go that far for one picture?!
Sheesh, and I use to develop pictures as a job. Theres a lot of perverted people out there. Just wish they would warned me before I had to process them dirty pictures since everyone else at the register can see them too!
I saw this story on AOL News and thought-how crazy! I have pics like these of my kids when they were little. WTF? It's crazy!
so i guess all those bare baby on a bearskin rug photos that used to be so popular are all porn now?
gimme a break
I can't beleive this, first I would beat the crap out of that wal-mart employee, if you're gonna take my kids do it because I beat the living crap out of someone that doesn't have anything better to do than to mess up families.
Wal-mart is going to lose a lot of money and I hope that family wins that law-suit.
Well, you know they will win the case against walmart or at least a settlement. They will probably get a lot of money off of it.
It's ridiculous. I wonder what these kids are going to think of their parents when they grow up. It amounts to deliberately and unnecessarily putting the kids through psychological trauma apart from breaking their bond with their parents. Where's this society heading towards! It's a shame that we are living in a kind of world where the sanctity in a parent-child relationship is either viewed with suspicion or not believed to exist at all.
by Stevennix2001 12 years ago
From doing a lot of research into more dangers that can be found on youtube, I came across ANOTHER video that seemed interesting. although it really has nothing to do with what im going to write about, it was rather interesting to watch. in recent news, a couple turned in some photos at...
by wilbury4 12 years ago
It has been revealed that some children under 10 years old in the UK now possess shotgun licenses, in my opinion some 10 year olds aren't safe with a pencil!Although the UK has one of the toughest gun laws, there is no minimum age requirement to possess a shotgun license.I personally have a very...
by insidiousglamour 11 years ago
The notion of gender neutrality seems as ridiculous to me as the notion of being color-blind in regards to race. There are physiological and biological characteristics that differentiate male and female. What is the point in trying to erase these through culture? U.K. Couple Raise Gender Neutral...
by Kat 15 months ago
Does it bother anyone else when people who have no children give advice on what you should or shouldn't be doing ~ or on how to raise children "the right way"?I don't care how many books you've read, classes you've taken, or number of families you've "witnessed" - unless you are...
by Raymond D Choiniere 13 years ago
Hey Hubbers,First let me start off- this is NOT for those who live outside the United States of America, because it's about Rights of Citizens.Next, this is what I find completely ridiculous, moronic, stupid and any other word you can come up with. It's pathetic!The link will take you to a story...
by Credence2 7 years ago
Say, it ain't so, Texas? A pimply face adolescent can go to Walmart pick up a Glock 9mm and nobody raises an eyebrow. As a part of Credence's Rightwing Watch, I discovered an interesting piece of irony, Texas has a law that prohibits an individual from owning more than 5 vibrators (cant use the...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|