Mom arrested for taking tot to tanning bed
Replies
-
She looks like she rubbed poo all over her face. Gross! Poor child :frown:0
-
0 -
^^^^^^^^^ EXACTLY ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :laugh:0
-
Holy ****, this far into a thread about tot tanning and no tanned Stewie?! Shame on us!
0 -
Blown out of proportion or not... how is she going to take care of two young children when she is dying of skin cancer? What a shame!!!
AGREED0 -
I haven't read all the responses but isn't it illegal to tan if you're under 18? Or are they trying to get that in there? If not, it should be! 44....she looks in her 60s! Not to mention the cancer risks...0
-
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
I understand what you are saying, but she didn't just say she went tanning with mommy as a matter of conversation, she said it after asking why she was sunburnt. For teachers (and nurses as was the case here), at least in the US, it is not whistleblowing, it's a legally mandated requirement of their job. If a child says something that amounts to endangerment, as I believe bringing a child tanning does, then they are required to report. It is not their job to ask the mom or investigate. Abusers and people who neglect/endanger their children lie. They aren't going to admit it to the school nurse. If she does take the child tanning and denies it to the school nurse and it turns out it was true and the nurse never reported, she can lose her job and her license.
ETA - which isn't to say I necessarily think she should have been arrested or that the charges won't end up being dropped. I just think that the argument that the nurse didn't do the right thing is off.0 -
Damn I look pretty good for my age compared to her lol
I feel the same way. I'm 40 and SOOOO happy i gave up on the tanning beds when i was in my 20s. I still have skin damage from it (and real sunburns) though.
She is 'leatherface'. And clearly has an addiction to the tanning beds. I think i saw somewhere on this forum that someone called her 'tanorexic'. She is. I hope the child is ok. Severe sunburns on children can lead to melanoma at an earlier age, especially fair skinned children.
I even put sunscreen on my 6 yr old's head!0 -
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.0 -
How does ANYONE even think that THAT looks good?
I read the short article and according to that she only takes her daughter tanning in the backyard...isn't that bad enough? Put some sun screen on your kid and don't make them bake in the sun!0 -
The article mentions that New Jersey allows it at 14.I haven't read all the responses but isn't it illegal to tan if you're under 18? Or are they trying to get that in there? If not, it should be! 44....she looks in her 60s! Not to mention the cancer risks...0 -
This. I do not understand armchair detectives. Really? You really think this woman was arrested, arraigned, and then released on $25K bond, all on the offhand comment of a 5 year old? You don't imagine there might have been, I don't know, some kind of investigation? News stories do not give every bit of evidence that make up a case.
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.0 -
I read the article on this also....I didn't realize that she was only 44. I think I should show this to my 21 yr old that thinks it's "cool" to tan,.
Yikes0 -
Thank God for people like you who actually give a damn! Imagine that, a perfect stranger having more concern for a child's wellbeing then his/her own mother! Not only is that SICK but it's CHILD ABUSE!If the child was actually taken to a tanning salon, my question is what salon would actually let a 5 year old tan!?! I worked at one for about 3 years, and the youngest you could be was 12 (which I still find to be too young) with a parent's consent, 16 without.
While working there, a mom came in to tan with her 5 month old child... and tried to take her child INTO the room with her!! Are you kidding me! The UV rays aren't just limited to the bed, dumbass. Needless to say, I babysat the child for 20 minutes.0 -
The article mentions that New Jersey allows it at 14.I haven't read all the responses but isn't it illegal to tan if you're under 18? Or are they trying to get that in there? If not, it should be! 44....she looks in her 60s! Not to mention the cancer risks...
Lol age would be that low in New Jersey. Haha0 -
"Overly-tanned in NJ = see, Snooki."
The article mentions that New Jersey allows it at 14.I haven't read all the responses but isn't it illegal to tan if you're under 18? Or are they trying to get that in there? If not, it should be! 44....she looks in her 60s! Not to mention the cancer risks...
Lol age would be that low in New Jersey. Haha0 -
yeah I think it will bedimissed but like the original poster said I was just stuck on how she (the mom) looks! WOW! so thats what 10 years of tanning will do to ya! *grabbing my 50spf cream!!!!After reading the story, I think they are going to have hard time proving this case. They should drop the charges.0 -
Honestly, if this weren't from a legitimate news source, and if I hadn't seen it on my local news this morning, I would have thought that was a joke photo! It looks like she was dipped in Burnt Sienna paint or something!0
-
This. I do not understand armchair detectives. Really? You really think this woman was arrested, arraigned, and then released on $25K bond, all on the offhand comment of a 5 year old? You don't imagine there might have been, I don't know, some kind of investigation? News stories do not give every bit of evidence that make up a case.
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.
Where I live, teachers are required to report any suspicion of child abuse to DCFS, or we could lose our license. We get "training", which in my opinion, gives examples of children saying things which may or may not be abuse. When in doubt, we are to call DCFS and let them determine if the child is being abused or not.
I doubt she was arrested because the teacher called the authorities. She was arrested because the investigation found evidence of abuse or neglect.
I agree that the news does not give every bit of evidence making up a case. They focus on what will "hook" us in, which, unfortunately, is the state of that poor woman's features after so much tanning. I feel sorry for her. Truly. I don't think she could be well either to do this to herself in the first place, or from what she has done. I can't judge her, though. How and why did I let myself get into the state I'm in?0 -
The show "Its always Sunny in Philadelphia" had a plot like this. They take a baby because it looks so pale.
"Just to get a baaaase."0 -
I just spit coffee out my nose!0 -
The crypt called.........they want their Keeper back!!0
-
A bar will cut you off when you drink too much, uhmmm maybe someone should have said no to her.0
-
A bar will cut you off when you drink too much, uhmmm maybe someone should have said no to her.
Only because there could be legal consequences for them when they don't. If there weren't, I'm quite certain they would happily continue to take your money no matter how drunk you get.0 -
This. I do not understand armchair detectives. Really? You really think this woman was arrested, arraigned, and then released on $25K bond, all on the offhand comment of a 5 year old? You don't imagine there might have been, I don't know, some kind of investigation? News stories do not give every bit of evidence that make up a case.
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.
Actually... yes I do. Not everyone who is arrested ends up charged with a crime. It is up to a district attorney to determine if the case warrants prosecution. As another poster stated, that kid is super fair. If she had been burned in a tanning booth, it would likely be an all over burn and she would still be recovering from it. DFACS hasn't removed the child. And a judge would have to order a doctor's examination to confirm that the burn is from a tanning bed. If it is a natural burn, then it will likely heal too quickly for them to get a court order to have the kid examined by a doctor. Unless there is some previous accusations of neglect or abuse on file with the police or DFACS, this case is not going to go very far. The officer probably arrested her just to be on the safe side. Just like the teacher reported it just to be on the safe side.0 -
I'm well aware of how the process works, but it seems like people don't take into account that arrest warrants aren't just issued for no reason, and judges don't require that amount of bond based on nothing. I'm not saying she's guilty. But saying, "If you read the story the arrest is BS," is a little ridiculous. The charges didn't result from reading the story. Just because the daughter's comment prompted the investigation doesn't mean that it's the entire body of evidence being used here.
This. I do not understand armchair detectives. Really? You really think this woman was arrested, arraigned, and then released on $25K bond, all on the offhand comment of a 5 year old? You don't imagine there might have been, I don't know, some kind of investigation? News stories do not give every bit of evidence that make up a case.
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.
Actually... yes I do. Not everyone who is arrested ends up charged with a crime. It is up to a district attorney to determine if the case warrants prosecution. As another poster stated, that kid is super fair. If she had been burned in a tanning booth, it would likely be an all over burn and she would still be recovering from it. DFACS hasn't removed the child. And a judge would have to order a doctor's examination to confirm that the burn is from a tanning bed. If it is a natural burn, then it will likely heal too quickly for them to get a court order to have the kid examined by a doctor. Unless there is some previous accusations of neglect or abuse on file with the police or DFACS, this case is not going to go very far. The officer probably arrested her just to be on the safe side. Just like the teacher reported it just to be on the safe side.0 -
oh dear god in heaven, I am older than her and she looks like she is old enough to be my Mother0
-
I'm well aware of how the process works, but it seems like people don't take into account that arrest warrants aren't just issued for no reason, and judges don't require that amount of bond based on nothing. I'm not saying she's guilty. But saying, "If you read the story the arrest is BS," is a little ridiculous. The charges didn't result from reading the story. Just because the daughter's comment prompted the investigation doesn't mean that it's the entire body of evidence being used here.
This. I do not understand armchair detectives. Really? You really think this woman was arrested, arraigned, and then released on $25K bond, all on the offhand comment of a 5 year old? You don't imagine there might have been, I don't know, some kind of investigation? News stories do not give every bit of evidence that make up a case.
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.
Actually... yes I do. Not everyone who is arrested ends up charged with a crime. It is up to a district attorney to determine if the case warrants prosecution. As another poster stated, that kid is super fair. If she had been burned in a tanning booth, it would likely be an all over burn and she would still be recovering from it. DFACS hasn't removed the child. And a judge would have to order a doctor's examination to confirm that the burn is from a tanning bed. If it is a natural burn, then it will likely heal too quickly for them to get a court order to have the kid examined by a doctor. Unless there is some previous accusations of neglect or abuse on file with the police or DFACS, this case is not going to go very far. The officer probably arrested her just to be on the safe side. Just like the teacher reported it just to be on the safe side.
Well I still say that the charges will be dropped. The officer might have arrested her because she reacted all stupid and got unruly. Sometimes that happens too. Child abuse is a serious accusation to level on anyone, and anyone who treats their children well is likely to take offense to it.0 -
True, and you're totally entitled to that opinion (and may well be correct). I was only really talking about people who are so certain that they can tell what's true and what's not based on a few paragraphs of a brief news article (especially one which is really meant just to shock people with pictures of Madame Supertan). I just tend to get frustrated when people are comfortable with drawing conclusions from minimal information.
I'm well aware of how the process works, but it seems like people don't take into account that arrest warrants aren't just issued for no reason, and judges don't require that amount of bond based on nothing. I'm not saying she's guilty. But saying, "If you read the story the arrest is BS," is a little ridiculous. The charges didn't result from reading the story. Just because the daughter's comment prompted the investigation doesn't mean that it's the entire body of evidence being used here.
This. I do not understand armchair detectives. Really? You really think this woman was arrested, arraigned, and then released on $25K bond, all on the offhand comment of a 5 year old? You don't imagine there might have been, I don't know, some kind of investigation? News stories do not give every bit of evidence that make up a case.
You do not know the full extent of what was said. The girl may have said much more than that simple statement. You are judging with practically no knowledge of what happened.
I agree - I think the situation was misunderstood and blown out of proportions because of the way she looks( She obviously is addicted to tanning ).......there is no proof that the child was ever in the tanning bed. The teacher needs to have more evidence before calling the police on her for child endangerment.If you read the story the arrest is BS. There's no quoted evidence that she actually put the kid in a tanning bed. The kid was sunburnt and the 5 year old said mom took her tanning. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
Actually - the teacher doesn't need to have ANY evidence. Only a suspicion, in this case based on statements of the child. At that point, they are in fact, required by law, to report the situation.
Yes, but "actually" (hate that word) children say things, and things are not always what they seem....did they have a chat with the mother? did they ask any questions before involving police....you are required to report when children are in danger....I do not agree with any of this, but getting a tan is not abuse, (unless you look like the mother). I can bet that this case will be dismissed. All she said is I went tanning with mommy...not mommy let me in the tanning bed. There are whistle-blowers and there are conscious observers and reporters....BIG DIFFERENCE. The latter is what teachers are trained to be....
The teacher is not required to have a chat with the mother, and in many cases that could make things a lot worse for the child, and put the teacher in danger.
Actually... yes I do. Not everyone who is arrested ends up charged with a crime. It is up to a district attorney to determine if the case warrants prosecution. As another poster stated, that kid is super fair. If she had been burned in a tanning booth, it would likely be an all over burn and she would still be recovering from it. DFACS hasn't removed the child. And a judge would have to order a doctor's examination to confirm that the burn is from a tanning bed. If it is a natural burn, then it will likely heal too quickly for them to get a court order to have the kid examined by a doctor. Unless there is some previous accusations of neglect or abuse on file with the police or DFACS, this case is not going to go very far. The officer probably arrested her just to be on the safe side. Just like the teacher reported it just to be on the safe side.
Well I still say that the charges will be dropped. The officer might have arrested her because she reacted all stupid and got unruly. Sometimes that happens too. Child abuse is a serious accusation to level on anyone, and anyone who treats their children well is likely to take offense to it.0 -
:laugh:(especially one which is really meant just to shock people with pictures of Madame Supertan).
Understandable.I just tend to get frustrated when people are comfortable with drawing conclusions from minimal information.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions