A Georgia mother, Chuntera Napier, is out of jail after an arrest for allowing her 10 year-old-son to get a tattoo. She was arrested for violating a 2010 law that stipulates that it is illegal for anyone to tattoo a person under the age of 18 unless they are a physician, osteopath, or someone working under the supervision of a physician or osteopath.
Chuntera Napier got the tattoo for her son, Gaquan, who wanted to commemorate his brother, Malik, who was killed after being hit by a car two years ago. When someone at school saw Gaquan’s tattoo, they alerted the authorities and his mother was arrested and charged.
There are so many things wrong with this scenario that it’s hard to know where to begin.
The Child Wanted The Tattoo
First of all, the child wanted the tattoo, and this wasn’t something as trite as a passing whimsy for fashion purposes. I’ve explained to you before that a child’s grief doesn’t follow rules of etiquette. The child wanted the tattoo as part of his grief process, and who is to say that he isn’t entitled to memorialize his brother however he and his mother decide is acceptable?
There is nothing wrong with this tattoo, so while the school is busy worrying about who has a tattoo, they need to be concerned with kids who are going hungry, kids who are being beaten and sexually molested in the home–not to mention their primary job, which is to indoctrinate educate children.
The Mother Did Not Break The Law
How is this even illegal? Why are they holding the parent responsible when clearly she didn’t apply the tattoo? Based on the law (see below), it is “unlawful for a person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18…” The mother didn’t tattoo the child, so how is she in violation of the law?
16-5-71 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 16-5-71.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18, except that a physician or osteopath licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43, or a technician acting under the direct supervision of such licensed physician or osteopath, and in compliance with Chapter 9 of Title 31 shall be authorized to mark or color the skin of any person under the age of 18 by pricking in coloring matter or by producing scars for medical or cosmetic purposes. (b) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This is simply another case of people using their authority to stick it to someone who doesn’t live according to the same value set as them. The mentality goes something like this…
School worker: “I don’t think a 10 year-old should have a tattoo, so I’m going to report this to the police.”
Police/Prosecutor: “I don’t think this kid should have a tattoo, so we’re gonna search for a law under which we can prosecute her and make an arrest.”
The Tattoo Artist Should Know The Law
Even if the the law is interpreted as the mother being liable for taking her son to get a tattoo–which I don’t think she is–who’s responsibility is it to know the law regarding tattoos?
Getting a tattoo is a service, and as such, it is the responsibility of the establishment providing the services to know and adhere to the government rules and regulations regarding that service. Consequently, the tattoo artist should have known that in the state of Georgia, it’s illegal to give a tattoo to a minor unless they’re a physician, osteopath, or are working under the direct supervision of one. It was clearly the responsibility of the tattoo artist to know it was illegal for the child to receive the tattoo.
If you go to the pharmacy and ask for a medication that requires a prescription, whose fault is it if the pharmacist sells you the drug? Are you liable for requesting it, or is the pharmacist liable for giving it to you?
This Law Is About Control And Not Protection
At first glance, it might appear that the law is in place to prevent underage children to receive a tattoo. However, the law is in place to control who has the right to decide if the underage child receives the tattoo. If not the parent and the child themselves, then who should decide if it is okay for a child to receive a tattoo?
Racial And Cultural Implications
A dreadlock- and tattoo-wearing family of Black people isn’t the idealized standard–not among Blacks, and certainly not in mainstream America. Therefore, I don’t think that we should overlook the racial and cultural implications of this case.
Surely Chuntera Napier and her son were judged, not only for her decision to allow the tattoo, but also, because of what she looked and sounded like (see video below), and perhaps even their names. Despite the increased popularity of tattoos, many people associate them with gang affiliations. When folks see dreadlocks, many of them have the tendency to judge that the person is a Rasta, a militant, a weed-smoker, or perhaps one or more of the above.
In the minds of people who lack exposure to racial and cultural diversity, it begs the question, how can a dreadlock- and tattoo-wearing, probably gang affiliated, probably public assistance receiving, ghetto-talking, more than likely single Black young woman who allows her 10 year-old son to get a tattoo possibly be a good mother? I wouldn’t be surprised if people who think this way actually blame the mother for “allowing” her other son to be struck and killed by a car in the first place. Why would they feel this way? Because the “tribe has spoken,” and she has been deemed a bad mother.
They can’t even fathom being wrong about all of their assumptions. Consequently, their judgement of her as a bad mother is a commentary on her entire life and presentation. They do not approve, therefore she deserves to be punished for it. Balderdash!
I find it particularly disgusting that rather than showing empathy for their circumstance–empathy for the fact that memorialization of young Gaquan’s brother was necessary in the first place–people have chosen to criminalize her in both legal and moral courts.
Georgia mom charged with cruelty for getting her 10-year-old son tattoo
A Georgia woman was released on bond Wednesday after being arrested for getting her 10-year-old son a tattoo on his arm.
The Acworth Police Department arrested Chuntera Napier of Cobb County on Tuesday for tattooing her son after a person noticed the emblem on his arm. She was charged with misdemeanor cruelty as well as being a party to a crime.
Napier told WSBTV that she wanted to let her son, Gaquan Napier, get a tattoo to honor his older brother, Malik, who had died after being killed by a teenaged driver in Macon two years ago. Since the family is still mourning the death of Malik, Napier granted Gaquan’s wish to get a tattoo of his brother’s jersey number. Malik was 12 when he was killed.
A 2010 Georgia law criminalizes tattooing children under the age of 18. Source: The Grio
2 comments »