Underage Tatoos

Castiel · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:05

Rich_L said:
Fairly sure a Judge wouldn't award damages for parental butthurt, given that the kid appears to have no issue with the tattoo.

May as well make some enquiries into the ID thing though.

The child is underage and in this case is not considered by the State to be able to give consent. You seek a judgement on behalf of the child and as the child cannot give consent, it would be the legal status of the procedure that would be considered.

Xordium · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:07

@ RichL They are not presumed they are assessed. There is a big difference and the assessment weighting is very different for agreement and refusal.

bainbridge · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:07

Might be an idea to chill now it is done and be cool with him having tattoos but remind him of the consequences of having them done in un concealable places. He'll have interviews and stuff coming soon and while he can wear a long sleeve shirt to cover the existing one if starts rebelling over you flying off the handle over him having tattoos he just might have a swastika on his forehead next time you see him!

Natwee · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:10

Castiel said:
You asked why he would potentially sue.....I would have thought the 'loss' was obvious, albeit a financial loss needn't be incurred to sue for damages. For example, the negligence of the Tattooist in tattooing a child illegally would potentially be grounds to seek a judgement.

I asked what he would be suing FOR.

the negligence has to result in a loss to sue.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:13

Rich_L said:
Ironically a 16 year old is presumed to be competent to make their own decisions regarding medical treatment so even though it was illegal for the tattoo to be done, the kid is well within his rights to refuse any removal treatment.

I can see the damages assessment:

Judge: So...kid what do you think of the tattoo?
Kid: I love it, it's exactly what I wanted
Judge: And would you have it removed?
Kid: Hell no!

Judge: So that leaves the remaining head of claim as parental butthurt. I suggest you start to get used to it otherwise we'll be seeing each other an awful lot over your child's remaining teenage years

Children under 16 can consent to medical treatment as well as long as they understand it....however a court can overrule anyone under 18 if they feel that the minor hasn't understood or isn't competent to consent to the treatment or refusal thereof...

It isn't inconceivable that a judge would order the removal, particularly if the Tattoo might be considered to impact the child's future prospects and therefore their welfare.

Natwee · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:16

besides the fact that there is no wsay to quantify the loss, to sue for negligence there needs to be 3 things: relationship, breach, and loss as a reult of the breach.

the relationship is between the kid and the tattooist.
where is the breach? he went in asking to be tattood. He got tattood. Therefore its not negligent.

He may well be n trouble for tattooing minors, but thats a completely different issue to suing him for damages.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:19

Natwee said:
I asked what he would be suing FOR.

the negligence has to result in a loss to sue.

Not necessarily a financial loss...you need to establish that the Tattooist had a duty of care, then to demonstrate that the Tattooist failed in his duty of care, and that failure led to the injury or loss as a consequence...

The injury in this case could be defined by the assault on the child as he could not legally give consent, the loss would be then for the Court to determine.

The parent can sue on behalf of a minor under their parental care. The negligence is potentially apparent in the failure of the Tattooist to comply with the law and his failure to follow a defined duty of care to the child and by association his Parent.

Of course the detail (which we do not know) is important in establishing any of this, and it may not be the best course of action, but the potential is there.

I think the important thing for the OP is first to determine how his Son feels, the impact the Tattoo will have on his life and coming to an amicable solution to parenting with his ex-wife so that the welfare of their child is put above their obvious animosity toward each other...secondary to this The Tattooist should be contacted and it determined exactly why he/she allowed the Tattoo is be applied and then decide from there on whether further action is necessary.

neil_g · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:19

Rich_L said:
Ironically a 16 year old is presumed to be competent to make their own decisions regarding medical treatment so even though it was illegal for the tattoo to be done, the kid is well within his rights to refuse any removal treatment.

I can see the damages assessment:

Judge: So...kid what do you think of the tattoo?
Kid: I love it, it's exactly what I wanted
Judge: And would you have it removed?
Kid: Hell no!

Judge: So that leaves the remaining head of claim as parental butthurt. I suggest you start to get used to it otherwise we'll be seeing each other an awful lot over your child's remaining teenage years

Pretty much what I was going to say.

Legalities aside.. Maybe it's worth sitting down as a family and having an adult discussion (the son obviously feels he is a adult capable of making important decisions about his own body) about how/why he chose to do this and why he chose not to talk to his parent(s) about it.

ChrisJSY · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:31

I'd be interested in the tatooists story, if someone clearly looked old enough then they wouldn't ask for ID. But a "16.5" year old can look old enough but you'd assume identification would have been asked for, we simply do not know all the facts. What if fake I.D was used?

You have to understand you could be ruining someones career over your own emotional issues.

Natwee · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:36

Castiel said:
Not necessarily a financial loss...you need to establish that the Tattooist had a duty of care, then to demonstrate that the Tattooist failed in his duty of care, and that failure led to the injury or loss as a consequence...

The injury in this case could be defined by the assault on the child as he could not legally give consent, the loss would be then for the Court to determine.

The parent can sue on behalf of a minor under their parental care. The negligence is potentially apparent in the failure of the Tattooist to comply with the law and his failure to follow a defined duty of care to the child and by association his Parent.

Of course the detail (which we do not know) is important in establishing any of this, but the potential is there.

The fact is, you appear to be confusing the ability to sue for damages for a criminal injuries compensation claim, and the ability to prosecute the tattooist.

A claim in negligence is going to be difficult because it's difficult to show the breach in duty, even if there is a duty of care, which there doesn't appear to be. There is no obligation on the tattooist to act in the best interest of the customers.
This matter would be dealt with on a contractual basis, on either the basis that the minor couldn't legally enter into the contract, or that the tattooist has somehow breached the contract by not taking steps to ensure that the child was able to enter into.

The only totious element would be to sue for battery, which is old law. But the loss would be de minimis because the child consented, and clearly wanted the tattoo. He was of such an age that he, we presume, could appear old enough, and so whilst the tattooist would lose in terms of liability, the quantum would be very little because the judge will assess the loss at zero, because they got what they wanted. Damages are compensatory, not punitive.

The best thing to do in the circumstances, if the police don't take the matter further, is to bring a private prosecution under the criminal aspect, and then hang your claim on the CICA, because by that stage you have proven the criminal element.

Soundood · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:38

let it go, and move on.

I have seen younger children, acting like men, he is a man.

Energize · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:46

So piercings are ok under 18 and tatoos are not? Do the government use a random number generator to select these ages or something? They are effectively contradicting themselves and implying it is a victimless crime because someone under 18 actually can consent to body modifications.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:47

Natwee, I would disagree with you..there is a duty of care for a legally defined licence holder to abide by the legislation applied to their profession. The Tattooist has an obligation to his/her customers and their best interests under that legislation, covered under the HSE Act 1974 and the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969 and the The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

The law states that the Child cannot consent, so I cannot see how any negligence would be limited by the child's consent....also damages can be defined as exemplary damages, which are in excess of the actual loss and are therefore punitive rather than compensatory, so I disagree with you there as well.

The point about suing for the criminality is what I was referring to anyway however, as I said earlier.

I am not a lawyer however, so would be entirely open to correction or clarification by someone qualified.

Natwee · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:50

Castiel said:
I would disagree with you..there is a duty of care for a legally defined licence holder to abide by the legislation applied to their profession. The Tattooist has an obligation to his/her customers and their best interests under that legislation, covered under the HSE Act 1974 and the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969 and the The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

The law states that the Child cannot consent, so I cannot see how any negligence would be limited by the child's consent....also damages can be defined as exemplary damages, which are in excess of the actual loss and are therefore punitive rather than compensatory, so I disagree with you there as well.

The point about suing for the criminality is what I was referring to anyway however, as I said earlier.

I am not a lawyer however, so would be entirely open to correction or clarification by someone qualified.

Youre confusing the two separate trains of action. one would be the criminal aspect, and the other is in negligence. you are along the right lines but are blurring the two.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:59

Natwee said:
Youre confusing the two separate trains of action. one would be the criminal aspect, and the other is in negligence. you are along the right lines but are blurring the two.

I will defer to you as I don't know..I would say that the Parent has a case to prosecute the Tattooist though, how that would practically manifest I don't know and google isn't really very clear either...one case seems to revolve around the Tattoo Artist being convicted of Child Abuse of all things...

I was thinking more along the lines of Criminal Negligence.

CREATIVE!11 · 23 Sep 2013 at 00:08

Fake id or mom gave permission or something.

Yes it's idiotic, but you shouldn't be looking to blame tattoo shop... it's parents fault here. Or potentially fake ID at work.

Phantom Shadow · 23 Sep 2013 at 00:18

Energize said:
So piercings are ok under 18 and tatoos are not? Do the government use a random number generator to select these ages or something? They are effectively contradicting themselves and implying it is a victimless crime because someone under 18 actually can consent to body modifications.

Piercings aren't as major as a tattoo. If you get a tattoo and don't like it, it is a long (and probably painful and expensive) procedure to remove it. Therefore the age of 18 is chosen as that is deemed to be an appropriate age to make this sort of decision.

If you get a piercing and then decide you don't want it, stop wearing the earring or whatever. It had a far far lower impact on your body and appearance.

Now if the boy looked over 18 and provided fake ID which was checked, would take absolve the tattooist of all liability? He would have taken all the steps a reasonable man would in the circumstances to determine if the boy was old enough to consent.

Energize · 23 Sep 2013 at 06:59

Phantom Shadow said:
Piercings aren't as major as a tattoo. If you get a tattoo and don't like it, it is a long (and probably painful and expensive) procedure to remove it. Therefore the age of 18 is chosen as that is deemed to be an appropriate age to make this sort of decision.

If you get a piercing and then decide you don't want it, stop wearing the earring or whatever. It had a far far lower impact on your body and appearance.

Now if the boy looked over 18 and provided fake ID which was checked, would take absolve the tattooist of all liability? He would have taken all the steps a reasonable man would in the circumstances to determine if the boy was old enough to consent.

Tissue lost through piercings isn't regenerated either, I'd argue it has a more permanent effect than a tatoo, and the government also allows other forms of body modification like circumcision which even sometimes results in death, so they really have no credibility putting an age of 18 on tatoos.

DJMK4 · 23 Sep 2013 at 08:27

I had a tattoo for my 17th birthday, I don't know what the big deal is to be honest.

Castiel · 23 Sep 2013 at 08:38

Energize said:
Tissue lost through piercings isn't regenerated either, I'd argue it has a more permanent effect than a tatoo, and the government also allows other forms of body modification like circumcision which even sometimes results in death, so they really have no credibility putting an age of 18 on tatoos.

I used to have piercings in my youth...but I stopped when I joined up and it wasn't long before the holes closed up and you wouldn't have ever known I had piercings in the first place, so I would dispute that it has a more permanent effect than a tattoo...(which I still have)