Walmart - Children's Bathtub Pictures

I saw this on Good Morning America today. This story makes me so angry!
We all have pictures like this. I want to hear from the walmart employee that turned them in, what was he/she thinking?! Come on now, this is ridiculous! I hope they win a lot of money in their lawsuit against walmart!
Just one more reason I will NEVER step foot into a walmart again. Horrible!

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-co...ory?id=8624533





For A.J. and Lisa Demaree, the photos they snapped of their young daughters were innocent and sweet. But after a photo developer at Wal-Mart thought otherwise, the Demarees found themselves in a yearlong battle to prove they were not child pornographers.

"I don't' understand it at all," A.J. Demaree told "Good Morning America" Monday. "Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."

The eight photos in question were among a batch of 144 family photos the Demarees had taken to their local Wal-Mart. The developer alerted the police and the investigation into child pornography began in earnest, even though the parents maintained they were innocent bath time photos.

The Peoria, Ariz., couple had their home searched by police and worse, their children -- then ages 18 months, 4 and 5 -- were taken away from them for more than month. Their names were placed on a sex offender registry for a time and Lisa Demaree was suspended from her school job for a year. The couple said they have spent $75,000 on legal bills.

A report issued by local authorities described the photos as "child erotica" and "sex exploitation," the couple's lawyer Dick Treon told "Good Morning America." He said the person responsible for the report was unqualified to make such judgments.

The Demarees are now sharing a few of the photos with the public, he said, so the "truth to catch up with the lie."

"These photos were never intended for anyone to see except for family members," Treon said. "Perversion is in the eye of the viewer."

Eventually a judge threw out charges against the Demarees, but now they're going on the legal offensive by suing the state, the city and Wal-Mart for their role in what they call a "nightmare."

"I think that we need to have an awareness of how our innocent photographs can be misconstrued and misperceived," Lisa Demaree said.

The Demarees are suing the city of Peoria and the State Attorney General's office for defamation. They're also suing Wal-Mart for failing to tell them that they had an "unsuitable print policy" and could turn over photos to law enforcement without their knowledge.

"At Wal-Mart, we're committed to providing quality service and convenience to our photo customers," the company said in a statement. "These are sensitive allegations and we're taking them very seriously."

"It was unbelievable. I was in so much disbelief. I started to hyperventilate. I tried to breathe it out," Lisa Demaree told "GMA" this weekend, struggling through tears. "Some of the photos are bath time photos, but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, laying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute."

Lisa Demaree told "Good Morning America" today that the girls seem to be doing well, but that her oldest is showing some signs of anxiety when she visits other people's homes. She calls her experience in state care as time at the "stranger's house."

"They're doing really well, I think, considering what happened," she said. "But sometimes we don't know the effects that children experience and are undergoing when they go through things like this."

After Wal-Mart alerted them, investigators went to the Demaree home to question them and search their residence where the children live with their parents.

A.J. Demaree said he could understand why the police were there, but he said the pictures were innocuous snapshots of his kids goofing around, and some of them involved the children being naked.

"We have told our girls that they have freedom to be in their home and feel OK about their bodies and their nudity, but that there is a time and a place for it," Lisa said.

Police seized numerous videotapes and the Demarees' computers and said they found more photos and videos of the children frolicking without clothes.

Investigators and Child Protective Services saw it very differently and removed the children from the house.

A medical exam of the children revealed no signs of sexual abuse, and a judge ruled that the photos were in fact harmless.

ABC News legal expert Dana Cole said that in cases of child pornography authorities need to prove sexual intent on the part of the parents, and that after the judge reviewed the case and the Demarees underwent psychological evaluation, it was determined that there was no such intent.

From the Demarees perspective, the damage was already done.

Police and prosecutors insist they did what they thought was appropriate.

"It took us a long time to take a picture [again]," Lisa Demaree said. "I even worry about them in their bathing suits now, if I get a shot of them in their bathing suits and they're tilting their heads a certain way or their hips are sticking out a little bit, all I think of is 'Does someone think that it was posed? Or how is that going to be perceived?'"

Steve Meissner, a spokesman for Child Protective Services, released a statement saying, "When a police agency calls us on a matter, we have an obligation to act on that matter. If we refused, the community would be very unhappy with us."

The city of Peoria also states that it stands behind the appropriate actions of their officers.

"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa Demaree said, "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."

I guess everyone is on edge about child abuse - when no one noticed that rapist guy had a girl that gave birth to 2 kids in his back yard - they turn in anything remotely suggestive.

Oh my gosh! That's nuts. We took all sorts of pics of our girls covered in bubbles and such when they were little. Unbelievable that someone could think those were pornographic and for the kids to be taken away!

It's in no way pornographic! My mom had tons of those pictures taken when me and my sister were younger. My heart goes out to that family!

Times are changing and sadly as a parent I have to think twice about a picture before I take it. It's not just Walmart its all photo processing places...and in their defense they don't know if it isn't a parent these pictures.

This is not the first time such arrests have happened in recent years. Here's the reason.

Following passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, established in 1974, states established laws that required police, lawyers, and social and medical personnel to make "good faith" reports of perceived child abuse or neglect. It is an important law, having arisen out of the fact that one in 10 children brought to hospital emergency rooms was a victim of physical abuse. But the law, under which child pornography falls, contains no provision for training personnel to identify abuse or pornographic photos. As a result, false and damning allegations have risen by the thousands in the past three decades. In fact, in most states it's a misdemeanor for law enforcement officers and health providers not to report. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/200...os/index3.html

Here are some of the cases that have made the national news:

* In 2004, Jody Jenkins took his family, along with another family, on a “back-to-basics” camping trip to in Mistletoe State Park near Augusta, Ga. Jenkins used a disposable camera to take pictures on the trip, most showing run-of-the-mill camping stuff. He also snapped some of his three-year-old daughter skinny-dipping and one of his naked eight-year-old son, hamming it up in front of the camera as he dried his underpants on a stick near the fire after a swim. His friend's wife dropped the camera off at a local Eckerd drug to be developed. The store photo clerk later determined that several of the photos were “questionable,” and alerted the Savannah police. Jenkins was eventually cleared of “child pornography” and “sexual exploitation of a minor,” but not before Savannah police and the Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS) had put his family through an excruciating multi-week investigation in which friends and family were interviewed, employers were contacted, a lawyer was retained — and there was a constant threat of losing custody of his children.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/200...tos/index.html

* In 2003, Jacqueline Mercado, a 33-year-old Peruvian immigrant living in Dallas, TX took a few photos of her young children at bathtime; in one, Mercado was breastfeeding her infant son. After Mercado dropped off the film for processing [at an Eckerd Drug store], a technician determined they were “suspicious,” and, as required under Texas law, immediately contacted local authorities. Soon after, police were rummaging through her house for kiddie porn, a state welfare worker arrived to take her children away, and Mercado was charged with “sexual performance of a child,” a second degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Although the district attorney eventually dropped the charge (thanks in large part to Mercado's legal team who had agreed to work for free), Mercado had to fight for weeks to get her children back.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216344,00.html

* In 1999, a technician at a Fuji Film processing lab turned in to authorities a roll of film containing pictures Cynthia Stewart, a bus driver in Oberlin, Ohio. They including photos of Cynthia's 8-year-old daughter, Nora, at various stages of taking a bath. Add a zealous county prosecutor and a good dose of inflammatory news coverage--the Cleveland Plain-Dealer did a front-page story, a local TV news broadcast put Cynthia's mug shot on the screen, the Oberlin News-Tribune covered her arraignment under a banner headline --and you have all the ingredients necessary for the financial and emotional destruction of a family that has done nothing wrong, nothing unusual, nothing that would have seemed remarkable when they themselves were children.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991213/pollitt

* In 2005, a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrested—roughly, she says—and charged with producing and distributing child pornography. The charges were dropped 15 months later when a Pennsylvania special prosecutor overruled the local DA. Only Dull, her attorney, and police and prosecutors have apparently seen the photos, which are now under seal.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133292.html

* Marian Rubin, a 66-year-old social worker and award-winning photographer, took a roll of film of her granddaughters, four and six, before they got in their bath. One of the photos depicted one of the girls lying on a bed naked while reading a book. Police in her town, Montclair, New Jersey, arrested her after the photos were turned over to police by photo lab employees. A spokeswoman for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office asserted that the photographs met the standard for prosecution because they “depicted nudity for sexual gratification.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=132673&page=2

* In 1999 Jeffry Bimonte took some snapshots while vacationing in Florida with his two daughters. The girls were goofing around and told him to take a picture as they mooned him. "I heard them say, 'One, two, three,' and they said, 'Mooned you, mooned you, ha, ha, we mooned you daddy,'" Bimonte remembered. He says he saw nothing offensive about taking a picture, but while the film was being processed at a Genovese drug store, the lab worker noticed the pictures revealed Bimonte's daughters' genitalia so he confiscated the prints and called the police. When police confronted him, he says he was dumbfounded and did not know which prints they were referring to. He says the pictures were not posed — a claim he said was supported by a polygraph test. "It was cute, they were my daughters," says Bimonte. "I saw absolutely nothing wrong with it." But one of his daughters testified that she had indeed been posed — which is significant because prosecutors claimed at the trial that Bimonte set up a lewd display for the camera. Bimonte believes she was coerced into telling a lie, and the judge's clerk testified that the 8-year-old girl had her fingers crossed during her testimony. Bimonte was convicted of attempting to possess child pornography, sentenced to four weekends in jail, and lost custody of his two children.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=132673&page=2

* December 1994, Marilyn Zimmerman, a noted photographer and professor of art at Wayne State University in Detroit, was the subject of a child pornography investigation after police came across a proof sheet that Zimmerman had discarded. The proof sheet included five black and white images of Zimmerman’s three-year-old daughter as she emerged from a bathtub. In some of the images, Zimmerman’s daughter was touching her genitals. The police interrogated Zimmerman, searched her office and home, and confiscated approximately 250 photographs. Prosecutors decided not to press charges after they received numerous letters of support for Zimmerman from artists, art schools, and arts organizations around the country attesting to the artistic merit of her work. Six weeks after the charges were dropped, the Michigan legislature voted 95-5 to remove the clasue from the Michigan child pornography law that set out an exception for works created with artistic intent.

* In 1994, Ejlat Feuer, a 45 year old businessman from Bernardsville, NJ, was jailed on child endangerment charges after a photography lab turned over to police pictures he had taken of his nude six-year-old daughter for a class at the International Center of Photography in Manhattan. Feuer was handcuffed, jailed, and barred from his home and all contact with his daughter for two months. To defend their family, he and his wife estimated that they have spent more than $80,000 for lawyers, psychological examinations, and hotel rooms for Mr. Feuer. Mr. Feuer said he would have preferred to take the case to a jury to seek complete vindication, but the family couldn't afford the estimated $100,000 cost of a trial. The charges were eventually dropped.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/13/ny...r-of-pain.html

* In 1996, Toni Marie Angeli, 31, took an introductory photography class at Harvard Extension School, shot some film of her four year old son Nico and took it to Zona Photographic Labs. A technician who was developing the film noticed the pictures of a naked young boy and became concerned. The lab alerted the Cambridge police, who sent two detectives over when Ms. Angeli picked up the film. Tempers flared; after a scuffle, Ms. Angeli was arrested. After inquiries by the police, the Middlesex County District Attorney's office and the State Department of Social Services, Ms. Angeli was not charged with any crimes relating to child abuse or pornography but was convicted of disorderly conduct and malicious destruction of property in the incident and spent a month in prison.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/04/us...os-of-son.html

And some that didn't make the national news:

* William Kelly was arrested in Maryland in 1987 after dropping off a roll of film that included shots his 10-year-old daughter and younger children had taken of each other nude.
* David Urban in 1989 took photos of his wife and 15-month-old grandson, both nude, as she was giving him a bath. Kmart turned him in and he was convicted by a Missouri court. The conviction was later overturned.
* In 1994, police raided an art gallery in Tucson and seized innocuous photographs of Robyn Stoutenburg's four-year old son.
* In 1988 Virginia photographer Alice Sims' two children were temporarily removed from her home and given medical examinations after Dart Drug photo developers alerted police to pictures of a naked infant and a naked 3-year-old Sims had shot for a collage series called "Water Babies.
* In 1989, Patti Ambrogi, a teacher at Rochester Institute of Technology, was targeted with four complaints of child abuse and pornography when she exhibited photos of her nude twin daughters at a campus gallery.

IMO Wal Mart was correct in reporting photos of children showing frontal nudity.:tiptoe: How was the person developing the photos to know who took them or dropped them off for developing. They are not investigators, and it's better to err on the side of caution. I seem to remember this type of reporting got a child porn ring busted a while back, but I can't place where or when.

Seems to me where the case went awry was with the police/child protective investigation. I'm no fan of Wal Mart, but I think the develepor did the right thing. It was up to the authorities to determine what, if any follow up was needed.

I don't think it's okay that they took this couple's children away (disgusting!) but I do feel it's okay to question them because it's in the best interest of the child...now obviously this is ridiculous is most cases and hopefully people would have some common sense...I can't really judge this particular story cause I haven't seen the other pics they're not posting, I'm betting this was one of the 'best' ones...I am really careful when I take pics of my kids, believe me I have had to think about it more than once! It's sad :worry:

Originally Posted by Maineiac IMO Wal Mart was correct in reporting photos of children showing frontal nudity.:tiptoe: How was the person developing the photos to know who took them or dropped them off for developing. They are not investigators, and it's better to err on the side of caution. I seem to remember this type of reporting got a child porn ring busted a while back, but I can't place where or when. Seems to me where the case went awry was with the police/child protective investigation. I'm no fan of Wal Mart, but I think the develepor did the right thing. It was up to the authorities to determine what, if any follow up was needed.

Ditto!










:cheer2:

Originally Posted by Maineiac IMO Wal Mart was correct in reporting photos of children showing frontal nudity.:tiptoe: How was the person developing the photos to know who took them or dropped them off for developing. They are not investigators, and it's better to err on the side of caution. I seem to remember this type of reporting got a child porn ring busted a while back, but I can't place where or when. Seems to me where the case went awry was with the police/child protective investigation. I'm no fan of Wal Mart, but I think the develepor did the right thing. It was up to the authorities to determine what, if any follow up was needed.

With digital cameras as popular as they are, I doubt that perverts are linng up to Wallyworld for their photo development. They may be sickos, but they are not stupid. Innocent people are the ones who get caught up in this nonsense.
She was suspended from her job and they spent a fortune in legal bills to clear this up because some Wallyworld employee was not intelligent enough to see that they were family photos. Sometimes common sense trumps everything else.
It could have been handled a whole lot better. Those people could have been checked out if necessary without all the brouhaha that accompanied it.
Its fine to say the employee did his job, but see how you would feel if it was you and your kids put in this position?

Originally Posted by jhannum44 With digital cameras as popular as they are, I doubt that perverts are linng up to Wallyworld for their photo development. They may be sickos, but they are not stupid. Innocent people are the ones who get caught up in this nonsense. She was suspended from her job and they spent a fortune in legal bills to clear this up because some Wallyworld employee was not intelligent enough to see that they were family photos. Sometimes common sense trumps everything else. It could have been handled a whole lot better. Those people could have been checked out if necessary without all the brouhaha that accompanied it. Its fine to say the employee did his job, but see how you would feel if it was you and your kids put in this position?

If they know the employees are just ASSUMING they are innocent photos...you would be surprised. Scumbags are getting caught A LOT doing this stuff...they think they wont get caught.

Originally Posted by jhannum44 With digital cameras as popular as they are, I doubt that perverts are linng up to Wallyworld for their photo development. They may be sickos, but they are not stupid. Innocent people are the ones who get caught up in this nonsense. She was suspended from her job and they spent a fortune in legal bills to clear this up because some Wallyworld employee was not intelligent enough to see that they were family photos. Sometimes common sense trumps everything else. It could have been handled a whole lot better. Those people could have been checked out if necessary without all the brouhaha that accompanied it. Its fine to say the employee did his job, but see how you would feel if it was you and your kids put in this position?

Originally Posted by Maineiac IMO Wal Mart was correct in reporting photos of children showing frontal nudity.:tiptoe: How was the person developing the photos to know who took them or dropped them off for developing. They are not investigators, and it's better to err on the side of caution. I seem to remember this type of reporting got a child porn ring busted a while back, but I can't place where or when. Seems to me where the case went awry was with the police/child protective investigation. I'm no fan of Wal Mart, but I think the develepor did the right thing. It was up to the authorities to determine what, if any follow up was needed.

I agree with you both! Someone dropped the ball on this one. In the future I see Wallyworld providing some much needed training on the part of it's photo processing staff, as well as law enforcement. It is one thing to have harmless photos of your kids in the tub, and quite another if incriminating data was found on say their home computer.

The family will certainly win any claim for their inconvenience and humiliation. :rolleyes:

Better hide all those nekkid baby pictures in the bath or on the bearskin rug before someone comes in your house and arrests you....

Outrageous idiots Walmart employees for thinking innocent bath time photos as porn ,I hope the poor parents win their lawsuit and stick it to Walmart and the city of Peoria and state of Arizona.:mad2::mad2::mad2:

People are nut cases, years ago I worked in store that had one hour photo, we had a free promo going on. With coupon you got a free roll developed. I guess people think no one looks at there pics because my jaw dropped, how the hell did these people get the camera between their bodies to take that shot!! Of course they had the freebie coupon!!!


When I was younger alot of people took pics of there kids in the tub, I'm sure my parents might have some. But they didn't show anything more then above the waste in the bath water. Not sure why you would want to show genitals, thats weird(at least to me) and someone posted before these pictures showed that.