Topical Teaching

If the police were given universal access to the photo albums of my parents’ generation, there would be millions of people in their 60’s and 70’s suddenly added to the sex offender registry. Since when did innocent bath photos constitute a sexual offense? If naked documentation of children was automatically considered material for Child Protection Services, then video of a birth must be classified as ‘kiddy porn’ (unless the baby somehow arrives fully clothed).

The problem with this case and others like it, is it completely undermines the function of a child offender registry. To have known pedophiles share a registry with loving parents is absolutely outrageous and completely unacceptable:

An Arizona couple is suing US department store Walmart after they were falsely accused of taking pornographic photos of their three daughters.

lost custody of their children for a month and say they spent more than $75,000 in legal fees as a result of the ordeal, ABC News reports.

It all started in 2008 when the Demarees took some holiday photos into their local Walmart to get developed.

A Walmart employee raised concerns with the store manager about several bath time photos the couple had taken of their daughters – then aged five, four and 18 months.

Instead of getting their happy snaps, the couple were reported to police and their children placed in the custody of the Arizona Child Protective Services Agency. 

A medical exam of the girls showed no signs of sexual abuse and a month later a judge ruled the photos were innocent and not child pornography.

The Demarees regained custody of their children but in the meantime had to endure their name being listed on a registry of sex offenders.

Mrs Demaree was also suspended from her job at a local school for a year while the investigation was underway.

“We’ve missed a year of our children’s lives as far as memories go,” Mrs Demaree told ABC News.

“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.”

In 2009, the couple sued Walmart for not telling them that they could turn over photos to authorities without their knowledge.

They lost the hearing after a judge ruled that employees in Arizona could not be held liable for reporting suspected child pornography.

But the couple is now appealing the case.

On a March 6 hearing, the family’s lawyer argued that Walmart committed fraud by not disclosing to customers that employees would look at their photographs.

It was also negligent for “untrained clerks” to be given the authority to make assumptions about the content of the pictures and report them to police, the lawyer claimed.

Walmart has argued that under Arizona law employees who report child abuse without malice, such as in this case, are immune from prosecution.

The appeals court is yet to reach a verdict on the case.

Click on the link to read Parody of Oscar Nominated Movies Featuring a Cast of Adorable Kids

Click on the link to read Hilarious Parenting Checklist