World's Coolest Mom Charged by Police

[Darth Wong]

Mom Indicted for Hiring Stripper for Teen

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A mother faces criminal charges after she hired a stripper to dance at her 16-year-old son's birthday party. Anette Pharris, 34, has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and involving a minor in obscene acts. The boy's father, the stripper and two others also face charges.

``I tried to do something special for my son,'' Pharris said. ``It didn't harm him.''

About 10 people under the age of 18 were at the birthday party in September, including minors who were not related to the family, authorities said.

Police spokesman Don Aaron said minors are not permitted in adult establishments.

``A person shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that law by hiring a stripper, a lady who took all her clothes off and spent a good amount of time dancing around minors,'' he said.

Anette Pharris took photos at the party and tried to have them developed at a nearby drug store. Drug store employees notified authorities, police said.

``Who are they to tell me what I can and can't show to my own children?'' the mother said.

Speaks for itself, really. So let me get this straight: in the US you're allowed to refuse medical treatment for your child if your religion says so, but if you hire a stripper for your son's 16th birthday party you go to jail? All hail Sexual Puritanism, American 21st century style

[aerius]

Damn, that's gotta be up there as the best birthday present ever.
I only have one question, did the kid get a lapdance?

[Tsyroc]

A guy I knew in the Navy was living in the Phillipines when he turned 16. His dad was in the Air Force and stationed there. Anyway, his uncle hired several hooker at one of the local establishements for him as his 16th birthday present.



Anyway, this could turn into an interesting court case.


This reminds me. When I was in Boy Scouts we got back from a camping trip and since it was my scout master's birthday his wife had arranged for a belly dancer to be at the parking lot we met at. The dancer performed her belly dance routine for him while there were all these kids around who were a lot younger than 16. Granted, she kept her clothes on but as far as I know I never heard anything about complaints. Most everyone though it was funny.

[Chmee]

Ok, while I personally feel it was inappropriate, it's ... and I know this is a radical concept to some people these days ... none of my fucking business.

The rat-bastard little goosesteppers at the photo shop should be fired. And mom needs to get a digital camera.

[Glocksman]

I agree that she shouldn't be facing charges for her own kid, but there were other minors present who weren't part of her family and she probably (if she did have consent, she shouldn't be charged at all) didn't have the consent of their parents to let them attend a strip show.

Also this does make sense:

Police spokesman Don Aaron said minors are not permitted in adult establishments. `
`A person shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that law by hiring a stripper, a lady who took all her clothes off and spent a good amount of time dancing around minors,''

I have a hard time getting outraged over the 'puritanism' of restricting strippers to those age 18+.


Also, the bit about refusing treatment isn't quite as simple as you paint it.
For example, Florida does have laws that provide 'Religious Immunity' for parents whose children die after they choose spiritual healing over conventional treatment.

Other states have no such exemption or severely limit the exemption and parents have been prosecuted for their refusal to treat their children. Even we here in 'flyover country' have that on the books.

Question:
May a child be a CHINS if the child’s parents fail to provide medical care to the child due to their religious beliefs ?

Answer:
In Indiana, if a parent, guardian, or custodian, fails to provide medical treatment for a child because of the “legitimate and genuine practice” of their religious beliefs, a rebuttable presumption arises that the child is not a CHINS. This presumption can be overcome with evidence, of course, and, in any case, it does not prevent a juvenile court from ordering medical services for the child. The presumption also does not apply in
situations in which the life or health of the child is in serious danger. Medical services can be ordered for the child before the filing of a CHINS petition.

In Indiana, abused and neglected children are legally referred to as Children In Need of Services (CHINS).

Of course there are instances where local prosecutors fail to bring charges against the parents, but that's the prosecutor being an asshat afraid of losing an election rather than a failure of the legislature to provide protections in the law.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that she shouldn't be facing charges for her own kid, but there were other minors present who weren't part of her family and she probably (if she did have consent, she shouldn't be charged at all) didn't have the consent of their parents to let them attend a strip show.

What makes you say this? It seems likely that she would warn them, and if she didn't, then one of the parents should be pressing the charge, not the photo developers.

[The Spartan]

Wait, are they upset over her buying her own child a stripper or the fact that other children were present?

If the former, then they should shut the fuck up. This is much ado about nothing. She's his mom for fuck's sake she should be able to do this if she wants. Hell she can buy him alcohol if she wants and the law can say nothing about it.

If the latter, then they may have a case, if, the parents of the other children had not consented to it. On the other hand how would this be realistically any different than if she had taken them to an R rated movie that had nudity in it? Oh right, it wouldn't.

And the employees of the drug store(anyone know if it was a chain or just a local owned) are asshats who need to mind their own goddamn business. Maybe we should print up Tshirts and bumperstickers like that: MYOGDB!!! and MYOFB!!!

[Glocksman]

I agree that she shouldn't be facing charges for her own kid, but there were other minors present who weren't part of her family and she probably (if she did have consent, she shouldn't be charged at all) didn't have the consent of their parents to let them attend a strip show.

What makes you say this? It seems likely that she would warn them, and if she didn't, then one of the parents should be pressing the charge, not the photo developers.

I don't know either way, but the article made a point of stating that several people not in the family were present.

Like I said, consent=OK. No consent, not OK.
As far as charges go, the junior NKVD men at the developers aren't pressing the charges.
All they did was give the pics to the police and the county prosecutor talked a Grand Jury into issuing indictments.


IIRC, most states do have laws on the books that require places like this to notify the police if they see child abuse taking place, and some fundy asshat thinks stripper=abuse.

Though I wish I'd been 'abused' like this as a child.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow... just..wow... How fucking asinine. Let me get this straight, it is legal by parental consent to get married or have sex under the age of consent... but not to see a strip show with parental consent

[Durandal]

Coolness aside, it was a pretty bone-headed move for the mother to hire a stripper for a bunch of her kids' friends who were under 18. It was similarly bone-headed for her to take the pictures with anything but a digital camera if she wanted to be discrete about it.

Aside from that though, I can't imagine that the parents of the other kids were too concerned. You'd think that at least one parent would've heard about Mrs. Pharris hiring a stripper for her son's birthday party. That kind of thing would be all over school.

[Rye]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A mother faces criminal charges after she hired a stripper to dance at her 16-year-old son's birthday party. Anette Pharris, 34, has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and involving a minor in obscene acts. The boy's father, the stripper and two others also face charges.

Uh... you fucking what? How does watching a stripper make someone a delinquent? I checked the consent laws of Tennessee, and the age of consent is 13 with the ability to consent to someone 4 years older than you. So, a 16 year old can't watch a woman employed to take off her clothes in front of him, but he can have sex with a 13 year old girl (and presumably watch her take off her clothes) fine.

That is really funny.

[The Spartan]

I checked the consent laws of Tennessee, and the age of consent is 13 with the ability to consent to someone 4 years older than you.

With this in mind, I take back what I said earlier about the whole possibility of a case based upon the other kids there. This is fucked up beyond all recognition. Let see you can have sex with a fucking 13 year old but you can't see an adult naked...

WHISKEY. TANGO. FOXTROT!?

[wilfulton]

"Well, I'm convinced that the less government gets involved in and tries to do, the better off everyone is!"
-Vern Obees

(Yes, he is a ficticious character come up with by me when I was still in high school, and my early years of college, but the sentiment remains).

[Alyeska]

Its legal for 16 year olds to fuck, but have nude pictures or get a stripper and you've broken the law. How fucking stupid is that?

[Il Saggiatore]

If the 16 year old boy had hired the stripper, would the police have charged him?

[Darth Wong]

If the 16 year old boy had hired the stripper, would the police have charged him?

Yes. It's illegal for some ridiculous reason. Maybe they should put monitoring devices on all TVs so parents can't show their kids any movies with nudity either.

[The Spartan]

If the 16 year old boy had hired the stripper, would the police have charged him?

Likely he would have. If he had been able to at all. Which is probably why his mom hired her for him.

[Zac Naloen]

Its legal for 16 year olds to fuck, but have nude pictures or get a stripper and you've broken the law. How fucking stupid is that?

As a wise young man from another board i used to frequent once said "go ahead kids, fuck all you want.. but they'll be hell to pay if you open your eyes!!"

[Lord Zentei]

I can't help but wonder how the photo develpoer shop's sales will be doing after this nonsense. "Develop Your Photos At FundiShoppe And Go To Jail!" "Charges Not Included In Price!" "Jailtime Guarantee if We Don't Like What We See!"

[Fire Fly]

Would this even be a case if it had taken place somewhere else other than Tennessee/the South? Honestly, if it had been somewhere like California, I have doubts as to if the photo developers would have even cared. Besides, is there such a great difference between a sexually explicit poronography and a almost nude woman who is dancing? By the age of 16, almost every kid has seen pornos, given the internet. And that said, that's one sweet 16 birthday gift

[Setesh]

And this is why I own a digital camera

[KowaiYukiDono]

And this is why I own a digital camera

That's my digital camera you "own".

But yeah, pretty much. That and my scanner won't scan colour for shit, digital cameras are overall cheaper and more portable, a whole buncha' other reasons...

Seriously, though.

FTW? I really don't see the problem with this.

[Alyeska]

Its perfectly legal for children to watch people die on live TV. But heaven forbid they see someone naked.

[Sephirius]

I'll have to whiskey tango foxtrot this one as well.

maybe the mom took large-format pictures =)

[Darth Wong]

It turns out that she had permission from every single one of the kids' parents.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 99,00.html

So what excuse are the apologists going to give now? Why is it so hard to get people to admit it when a bunch of southerners turn to be puritanical asshats?