Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
_Kissy_
Police say NC mom tattooed 11-year-old daughter
by _Kissy_
October 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM

30-year-old Odessa Clay

30-year-old Odessa Clay

HAVELOCK, N.C. — A heavily tattooed mother is in trouble with the law after giving her 11-year-old daughter a tattoo.

WCTI reports 30-year-old Odessa Clay says she didn’t know that tattooing a minor is illegal even with a parent’s permission.

Clay gave her daughter a small, heart-shaped tattoo near her right shoulder. She says the girl asked for the tattoo.

Havelock Police charged Clay with tattooing a person under 18.

Clay now lives near Grantsboro in Pamlico County.

Clay used her own tools and said she numbed her daughter’s arm. She says she tattooed the outline of a heart and didn’t fill in the entire shape.

The mother says she believes an ex in-law reported the tattoo to retaliate against her.

Clay is due in court on the tattooing charge next month.



Should she be charged?

Replies

  • babie113
    October 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM
    Yeah that's stupid
  • activitymode
    October 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM
    How stupid. Just because they are your children doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to them. Damn.
  • Lizardannie1966
    October 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM

    Her own tools? Is she a tattoo artist herself or what did she use?

    I don't feel she was neglectful nor abusive, but she didn't use a great amount of common sense from the way it sounds.

    What tools and her own expertise matter to me, personally, on whether or not she gets charged.

    The child is too young, IMO, however. I would have waited a few more years.

  • ShadowLark
    October 7, 2012 at 5:55 PM
    She has real tools and she numbed it up first. And really, HOW is this any different than the girl getting her ears pierced? I got a second and third hole in my ears at the mall when I was 11. So?
    Plus I can't help but point out the hypocrisy, here. She's going to jail for tatooing her daughter's SHOULDER, but if she'd brought her newborn son to the hospital to be circumcized, that would be all hunky dory? UGH!


    Quoting Lizardannie1966:

    Her own tools? Is she a tattoo artist herself or what did she use?

    I don't feel she was neglectful nor abusive, but she didn't use a great amount of common sense from the way it sounds.

    What tools and her own expertise matter to me, personally, on whether or not she gets charged.

    The child is too young, IMO, however. I would have waited a few more years.


  • Lizardannie1966
    October 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

    Is she a licensed tattoo artist? Some states do have laws pertaining to that and this is a part of why I've asked what I have.

    There are many who believe that circumcision is hygienically preferred and necessary, though that is an entirely different argument.

    What IF with those tools--and especially if she is not a licensed tattoo artist--and perhaps her lack of expertise (again, if she's not professionally trained) could have caused her to do actual harm to her child? Would you feel she should be charged then?

    Quoting ShadowLark:

    She has real tools and she numbed it up first. And really, HOW is this any different than the girl getting her ears pierced? I got a second and third hole in my ears at the mall when I was 11. So?
    Plus I can't help but point out the hypocrisy, here. She's going to jail for tatooing her daughter's SHOULDER, but if she'd brought her newborn son to the hospital to be circumcized, that would be all hunky dory? UGH!


    Quoting Lizardannie1966:

    Her own tools? Is she a tattoo artist herself or what did she use?

    I don't feel she was neglectful nor abusive, but she didn't use a great amount of common sense from the way it sounds.

    What tools and her own expertise matter to me, personally, on whether or not she gets charged.

    The child is too young, IMO, however. I would have waited a few more years.



  • LaughingTattoo
    October 7, 2012 at 6:27 PM

    Id have to know what her background was to make a judgement call on this. Was she experianced? Were they sterile tools?

  • FromAtoZ
    October 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

    Well, isn't she a wonderful mother.


  • godsgirl26
    October 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM
    It is her own child she did indeed have this child. Why are people so worried about what other people do with their kids.
    On the other hand that was really stupid of this mom to do. Not something i would do but hey not my kid so i don't care lol.
  • FromAtoZ
    October 7, 2012 at 6:34 PM


    Quoting godsgirl26:

    It is her own child she did indeed have this child. Why are people so worried about what other people do with their kids.
    On the other hand that was really stupid of this mom to do. Not something i would do but hey not my kid so i don't care lol.

    Giving birth equals your child as being property?  That is how your wording came across to me.

     It is illegal and well, her not knowing this tells me she is pretty dense.  That is her cross to bear.  If she is okay with tatting her young child, goodness knows what else she will feel is okay.  But yeah, not my kid, who cares.

    Oh, and in case you haven't figured it out yet, this is a debate group, a discussion group.  Hence, the discussing this.  


  • AdrianneHill
    October 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM
    I don't think she should have been charged. And when someone asked what if she had caused injury, if she had caused injury, it would make sense to be angry with an abusive parent whose idiocy harmed their child. No harm, no foul. Get the govt out my house

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN