Dad Who Branded Kids Acquitted

I think children need to be treated like cattle more often.

So long as the kids were of sound mind and mature enough to make such a decision, I see no issue here. Granted I think it is a little weird and certainly wouldn't fathom doing anything like that to my kids. However there are worse things people do to their kids that leave far deeper emotional scarring (religious brainwashing springs to mind) that is perfectly acceptable in society. So, more power to them I say. If they are happy with the end result, who are we to say they can't do it.

The boys were 13 and 15 at the time. One got the brand on his arm, the other on his chest.

And the 18 year old got the brand on her calf

And don't forget the divorce.

The father was Branding them as his, not his ex-wive's...

13 Is more then old enough to make a decision like that. Again it depends on the individual. The reasoning is completely irrelevant if the individual was mentally mature enough to decide for themselves. Obviously the kids still stand behind their decision, so it is not up to us to decide they are wrong.

Sounds like someone found a way around the legal age of consent to get a tattoo law up in Washington...

You really think a 13 year old is mature enough to make a decision like that? Have you met many 13 year olds?

It actually doesn't depend on the individual, it depends on the law, which is why 13 year olds are not allowed to do a whole bunch of things their adult counterparts are able to. Obviously, context plays a heavy role in this, too, thus the place of judges rather than, say, a Turing Machine to decide on such things.

For something that is the equivalent of a family tattoo? Sure, why not?

How can we report this story in a impartial way.. I know lets say he branded them like cattle.
Their mom must be some kind of super bitch, or the dad is a master manipulator.

Mature enough? No. Wanting tattoos? Oh god yes. Getting them as soon as they can even before they are 18? Yes on that one too.

Most? Absolutely not. Exceptions? Certainly. I have met kids mature well beyond their years, just like I have met adults who quit maturing at around age 9. As to if this kid was or was not, is entirely speculation. I am pretty sure none of us here know the kid and can say for a fact as to if he was or was not.

Don't get me wrong, I find it reprehensible what happened. However that is based on my own personal moral standards, which do not necessarily reflect the same moral standards as someone else. The problem is, most people seem to forget that just because they are offended by something, doesn't mean everyone else is.

Yes, there are always exceptions, but even then I wouldnt offer an exception the choice at 13. The human brain doesnt finish fully developing till around 25, which is basically double the age of a 13 year old. Kinda gonna steal a page from RvB here... Branding/Tattoos are permanent. Sure they seem like a great idea when you are 13, but what about when youre 23? Or 33? Ive heard some people make a really good argument for their tattoos "Its a reminder of that time of my life", which is great that they as a person can put it in that perspective, but most people its more like "I was so STUPID! She said she thought Tattoos were hot! Now Im stuck with THIS on me".

So yeah, the boys say they wanted to be branded, so sure, acquit the guy. But Id be calling CPS on that guy real fast, and getting those kids some psychological testing. Cause something aint right there...

I agree with you that it is still stupid to give an exception the choice. That however does not make it illegal. Last I checked CPS has to operate within the bounds of the law, as such they aren't a viable option here. Stupidity is not illegal in this country (Even though the more cynical of us sometimes say it should be).

The entire problem with this situation is the whole slippery slope argument. If you try and prosecute this guy for this, then you open a whole can of worms of lawsuits/criminal prosecution against a nearly uncountable number of parents for various reasons.

Several examples;
The above branding with consent - argument that the child was not mature enough to make said decision/brainwashed into thinking they were?
Corporal punishment - Those that support being targeted by those who are opposed.
religious brainwashing - think of all the cults and fads, most recent example being Strong city. If you ever watched the nation geographic special on it, those kids are clearly brainwashed. There are tons of examples of this across all religions of varying extreems.
Anti-religion brainwashing - Just in case you think I have some personal agenda against religion, I consider the anti-religion zealots just as bad. More importantly the ones who are just determined to remove any possible mention of god out of any part of our country.

Again the above examples are merely things that share similar practices. While one or the other may offend some, to others it is perfectly ok. The question is, do you want to make one of them illegal at the risk of opening the floodgates on all of them? I cannot answer that question as I don't feel there is an appropriate one. In my opinion any attempt to single out one, would just result in a witch hunt on a completely massive scale the likes of which this country (world) is incapable of dealing with.

You forgot to add in piercing a kids ears. I have seen quite a few babies yes younger than one years old with earrings.



I love how people say a child doesn't have the maturity or developed mind to make adult decisions but they can be prosecuted as an adult. Double standards, pick one or the other.

I know Im probably gonna be accused of a double standard, but ear piercing isnt permanent. I do hate seeing 8 month babies with pierced ears, but if later in life they chose to get rid of them, they take them out and eventually the wound closes.

Concerning the piercing bit..My wife insisted on getting our 3 month old daughters ears pierced. I was not terribly fond of the idea (But some fights aren't worth it).

The obvious advantages are as the child gets older, the earrings are just there and they aren't tempted to play with them.
Also, clearly pain isn't an issue as our child never even flinched much less cried. It also does heal up extremely fast at that age.

Disadvantages, child clearly doesn't get a choice in the matter. Technically it could be considered a minor form of mutilation/branding.

When piercings close they only leave a scar and that would be silly to prosecute someone for scaring their child.. wait.