Bath Time Photos Prompt Child Porn Allegations

[nuclearfm]

For A.J. and Lisa Demaree, the photos they snapped of their young daughters were innocent and sweet.
Share
Children were taken into protective custody over pictures taken at bath time.

But after a photo developer at Walmart 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 Walmart. 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.
Related
Experts Condemn Man Who Slapped Child
WATCH: Parents Sue Walmart Over Bath Time Photo Controversy
Web Site Questions Wal-Mart Shoppers' Attire

The Peoria, Ariz., couple had their home searched by police and worse, their children -- then ages 18 months, 4 and 5 -- were taken 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 Walmart 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533

[thispego]

are bath-time photos of your naked children really necessary? they need proof later in life that they were bathed, or what?

[MiamiHeat]

sign of the times. everyone is quick to judge everyone, we are pessimists, suspicious of each other, and ready to label and destroy each other's lives.

[JMarkJohns]

I can't think of a single reason why the photos are necessary, but I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't have photos like this of his/her childhood.

The person who turned 'em in was probably was teenage hirer who thought it'd be funny to cause trouble... When I was a teen I made a joke like that to a friend who's parents who had some of these "cute" naked pics framed around their house.

[Trainwreck2100]

I work in a photo lab and i hate when we get those pictures, so i dont even print those out.

[Cry Havoc]

are bath-time photos of your naked children really necessary? they need proof later in life that they were bathed, or what?

Maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.

I'm sure my mom has a few photos of me sans clothing when I was little. She must be a pedophile.

In fact, parents who see their kids naked other than for diaper changing or bathing are probably getting off on it.

:rolleyes

This is the height of absurdity.

[EricB]

Maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.

I'm sure my mom has a few photos of me sans clothing when I was little. She must be a pedophile.

In fact, parents who see their kids naked other than for diaper changing or bathing are probably getting off on it.

:rolleyes

This is the height of absurdity.



YAY NANNY STATE!!

Gotta love where our country is right now.

"Man I hope the government does something..."

[Cry Havoc]

YAY NANNY STATE!!

Gotta love where our country is right now.

"Man I hope the government does something..."

I don't know what's worse, this, or telling an 18 year old boy he's a sex offender for life and throwing him in jail because he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend that he's been dating for 2 years.

[mookie2001]

thispego let me get some tub photo time with your baby

[Stringer_Bell]

So...John Mccain's state is arresting parents for idiotically taking more/less innocent pictures of their children to Walmart to be developed? 8 out of 144 photos, you'd think the photo developer would put 2 and 2 together. I mean, I think taking such pics to a public developer is dumb and parents should exercise better judgment...but unless there was blatant displays of baby parts in those pics I don't know how anyone could press charges on those parents.

[PM5K]

Who the hell still uses film, that's what they deserve, it's 2010 get with the times.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I sincerely hope the fucking win! what a joke! bath time pictures = child pornography... people are so fucking up tight now a days.

[paparazzi]

Who the hell still uses film, that's what they deserve, it's 2010 get with the times.

There are millions who still use film.

[PM5K]

Okay so here's my serious response.

First of all the pictures apparently were digital. I assumed it was film since 144/24= 6 rolls of film, and the initial story didn't mention they were digital, but that was more of a joke anyhow.

As for the pictures: Personally I've taken similar types of pictures of my kids. The first type is a "first bath" picture. Typically you have to wait a little while for the umbilical cord to come off before you can give your baby a bath (you can only give them a sponge type bath before it falls off), they are usually just a couple of weeks old at most.

The second type is something I've done with all three of my boys, I'm not really sure how it got started but when my son was about a year and a half I took a picture of him taking a bath in one of those steel buckets (The round type some people might put beer in). It's basically my son in the bucket with soapy water and a rubber ducky.

The only real issue I would have with the story personally is that I wouldn't take those types of pictures of my kids at four and five years old, but I suppose that's just me personally, the oldest I've done it was a year and a half, to me once a kid is four or five they aren't cute in that same way, and it seems to me to be at least a little inappropriate, but I can't imagine I would report anyone else for doing so, I just wouldn't do it personally.

What's also disturbing is that it seems this type of thing is a domino effect, and once the first person calls it something, everyone after that doesn't have the ability, or good sense to call it something else, it's almost like they have to run with what they are given, and aren't able or willing to say "Hey, this isn't child pornography".

Lastly, I watched an interview with the parents and their attorney and his explanation for only releasing half of the photos was that the original police officer classified them as child pornography and because of that the attorney didn't feel he could release them without subjecting himself to the same type of treatment his clients had faced.

That doesn't make any sense to me, a judge ruled they were not child pornography so I can't think of any reason they wouldn't release those photos, it would help to prove their point because the four that they have released are certainly very typical of the type of photos most parents would probably have taken of their kids.

[xellos88330]

This whole deal is absurd.

Note to all parents: Go digital and buy a damn photo printer so you don't get accused of pornography.

[spurster]

Nudity is not pornography.

[Soul_Patch]

Wow...we have a lot of pictures of my son in the bath...mainly because he is usually having a lot of fun and laughing / smiling, which makes for perfect "cute" pic opportunities. This is absolutely absurd. My wife is an LSOTP, i am going to show her this to see what she thinks.

She often had people in her office that were labled "sex offenders" that were so wrongly accused it was insane. One guy was now 22 years old, married to a 20 year old girl, and he has been labled a sex offender since he was 18 and the girls parents pressed charges on him for dating their 16 year old. Kid was going to college, had a steady job, making good for himsel fand his wife, yet had this stigma attached. So insane.

Im all for hanging the real sicko offenders out there, but to me, they need to do away with the registry thing until they can have some better guidelines for it.

[WildcardManu]

She often had people in her office that were labled "sex offenders" that were so wrongly accused it was insane. One guy was now 22 years old, married to a 20 year old girl, and he has been labled a sex offender since he was 18 and the girls parents pressed charges on him for dating their 16 year old. Kid was going to college, had a steady job, making good for himsel fand his wife, yet had this stigma attached. So insane.

That's messed up..

[mookie2001]

Kid was going to college, had a steady job
that has nothing to with anything



i feel bad for these guys on the sex offender list for their teenage girlfriends, but thats very different and really doesnt relate to the OP, there is a law and everyone knows the laws, its pretty much black and white, if you dont want to risk it, then dont

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

On the same page as this story, a 15 year old girl is facing felony child pornography charges for taking/sending naked pictures of herself to friends.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[jman3000]

My mom has pictures of me in the tub when I was probably 1 or so. You can see the peepee and everything. I looked happy as hell.

4 and 5 is a bit old for those kind of pictures... but it's still not egregious enough to warrant sex offender status.

This line kinda threw me off "then ages 18 months, 4 and 5"

[Bartleby]

there is a law and everyone knows the laws, its pretty much black and white, if you dont want to risk it, then dont

Really? What, exactly, is the law?

[CosmicCowboy]

Unfuckingbelievable. I thought all parents had naked baby pictures to use for blackmailing and bartering with their teens...

[JamStone]

I agree it's absurd. Most parents take those types of pictures. And the reason they take those pictures aside from that they are cute and fun for parents is so they can embarrass you when you get older by sharing them with your friends, girlfriends/boyfriends, fiance type of shit.

But, along the lines of asking who uses film anymore, even though they were digital pictures... buy a home laser photo printer. You can get them super cheap these days for something like $70-100.

[mookie2001]

17 is the age of consent? isnt that the law?

[Bartleby]

17 is the age of consent? isnt that the law?

I thought you were talking about the OP i.e. the law that the parents were initially accused of violating.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Unfuckingbelievable. I thought all parents had naked baby pictures to use for blackmailing and bartering with their teens...

Exactly!!




Truth is we're too scared of nudity in this country. Kids naked in a tub does not equal child porn. I hope Wally World ends up making these folks millionaires in their settlement.

[JamStone]

17 is the age of consent? isnt that the law?

Statutory rape goes state by state. The large majority of states have the age of consent at 16. But, there are a few that I believe are 15 and maybe even 14. I don't think there are any states that have the age of consent older than 16, but there could be a few that have it at 17.

The problem really arises with the language of some of the laws where it doesn't matter what age the alleged "offender" is so teenage couples where the boyfriend is 17 and the girlfriend is 15 could be a problem under the law. But it's really only a problem when it's fanatic, militant parents trying to persecute and prosecute the boyfriend for "tainting" their teenage princess.

[thispego]

maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.

I'm sure my mom has a few photos of me sans clothing when i was little. She must be a pedophile.

In fact, parents who see their kids naked other than for diaper changing or bathing are probably getting off on it.

:rolleyes

this is the height of absurdity.

uhh, i never said they should have been turned in for it or that they did anything wrong. I just think it's ratarded for parents to use bathtime as a photoshoot.

And people that are "enamored" with being new parents need to get over themselves and their little "accomplishment".

[Trainwreck2100]

Exactly!!




Truth is we're too scared of nudity in this country. Kids naked in a tub does not equal child porn. I hope Wally World ends up making these folks millionaires in their settlement.

so if the photo guy makes some copies for himself and sells it to freaks he's not breaking the law cause its not porno?

[thispego]

so if the photo guy makes some copies for himself and sells it to freaks he's not breaking the law cause its not porno?

good point trainwreck. mommy and daddy are exposing their children to perverts everywhere by submitting their cute little bathtime photos to STRANGERS working at WALMART that can easily reproduce and distribute them anywhere they like.

[Dex]

http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Eric_B/funny-pictures-kitten-handbasket1.jpg

[nuclearfm]

so if the photo guy makes some copies for himself and sells it to freaks he's not breaking the law cause its not porno?

That's pretty creepy. All the more reason to do it yourself. All the more reason to never go to Walmart. I think someone posted it's almost like God shook trailer parks into walmart to create a new world.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

so if the photo guy makes some copies for himself and sells it to freaks he's not breaking the law cause its not porno?

Some people get their jollies from all kinds of things that don't qualify as pornographic. It's not the parents fault that there are sick people out there. I don't think of pics of kids taking a bath as porn, so I'm not sure if the guy copying the photos is breaking a law other than invasion of someone's privacy. If the kids were involved in some sexual act, then you'd have a child porn issue I think.

The parents definitely should have controlled the pics a little better, but they haven't done anything that millions of other parents haven't done over the years. They ended up losing custody of their kids for a little while, and they were put through hell, which was truly the crime in all of this.

[pkbpkb81]

it's funny that so many posters have tips on how to get around child porno laws using digital cameras and personal printers

your a jackass

[ploto]

I actually have no problem with the person in Wal Mart. I believe that they are taught that they have to report anything even remotely suspicious, or they could get in a lot of trouble. He or she did as they were told. Then, it is up to law enforcement to decide what to do with it, and that is the place blame should be placed.


"Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."

I do not agree. I have no photos like this of my child after the age of about 1, and these girls were 4 and 5 years old. 99% of people do not have naked bath photos of their 5-year old kid.

[PM5K]

I actually have no problem with the person in Wal Mart. I believe that they are taught that they have to report anything even remotely suspicious, or they could get in a lot of trouble. He or she did as they were told. Then, it is up to law enforcement to decide what to do with it, and that is the place blame should be placed.



I do not agree. I have no photos like this of my child after the age of about 1, and these girls were 4 and 5 years old. 99% of people do not have naked bath photos of their 5-year old kid.

That's the same point I made, I'd be interested in the opinions/experiences of other parents as well.

[spurster]

Nudity is not pornography.

[ploto]

Nudity is not pornography.

Depends what you are doing in the nude.

Granted not all nudity is pornography, but I would guess that the majority of pornography involves nudity.

[Frenzy]

feel bad for the parents...if they really were innocent. Nothing worse that ppl saying your a pedo for your own child. A real parent could not even think of such horrible things. A good parent anyway..

[Drachen]

uhh, i never said they should have been turned in for it or that they did anything wrong. I just think it's ratarded for parents to use bathtime as a photoshoot.

And people that are "enamored" with being new parents need to get over themselves and their little "accomplishment".

You obviously don't have kids. It has nothing to do with the "accomplishment" other than the accomplishment of the feeling of love and vulnerability that the parents heretofore didn't know they were capable of. Enamored indeed.

[mookie2001]

You obviously don't have kids
i doubt anyone in the history of the internets has been told this more than thispego

[mrsmaalox]

The only pics I have of my kids like that are in bubblebaths and nothing shows but their faces. I have one full nude of my oldest once when he escaped and streaked across our backyard; he was about 2 and none of his baby bits show.

It's sad that people have to be careful about such things, but this is the world we live in and no one's gonna look out for us but us!

[Kermit]

You obviously don't have kids. It has nothing to do with the "accomplishment" other than the accomplishment of the feeling of love and vulnerability that the parents heretofore didn't know they were capable of. Enamored indeed.

yup. the methods you go through to have kids are pornographic. no pego there.

[JoeChalupa]

You obviously don't have kids. It has nothing to do with the "accomplishment" other than the accomplishment of the feeling of love and vulnerability that the parents heretofore didn't know they were capable of. Enamored indeed.

:tu

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

i doubt anyone in the history of the internets has been told this more than thispego

:lol

[angel_luv]

I don't have kids yet, but reading the couples' story makes me want to NEVER take any bath time pictures of my kids- no matter how young or bubble covered the kids are.

The pictures are not worth the risk- period.

[Spursfan092120]

Maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.

I'm sure my mom has a few photos of me sans clothing when I was little. She must be a pedophile.

In fact, parents who see their kids naked other than for diaper changing or bathing are probably getting off on it.

:rolleyes

This is the height of absurdity.
this +10000000

[thispego]

You obviously don't have kids. It has nothing to do with the "accomplishment" other than the accomplishment of the feeling of love and vulnerability that the parents heretofore didn't know they were capable of. Enamored indeed.

no, just chances are you were a emotional pussy before you had kids too.

doesn't take kids to know what it's like to have kids. being a parent does not give you some special ability too feel extraordinary love and vulnerability, it just gives you an excuse.

[thispego]

this +10000000

:lmao

then cry havoc = pussy

you = pussy +10000000

[Spursfan092120]

:lmao

then cry havoc = pussy

you = pussy +10000000
ok..so let me get this straight..because some Wal-Mart developer, who is probably a pedophile sees a picture of naked babies (which is very common for people to take pictures of their children in the tub), and freaks out, and makes people spend $75,000 on legal bills, and they want to sue Wal-Mart, and we agree, that makes us pussies. Listen..just because you're a creepy little bastard who probably lives in mommy's basement and has no social life, that doesn't mean that we're pussies because we're normal people. Here's a hint. If you get into a conversation, and everyone disagrees with you, you're normally wrong...either that or an idiot. With you, I'd say it's both.

[Johnson]

ok..so let me get this straight..because some Wal-Mart developer, who is probably a pedophile sees a picture of naked babies...
so were the pics just of the 18 month old, or also of the 4 and 5 year old? 4 and 5 is NOT a "baby", and naked pics at that age is kind of weird at least in my opinion.
However, I agree with everyone that nothing should have been reported.

It was poor discretion on the parent's part.

Don't 4 and 5 years olds take baths on their own anyway :wtf

[thispego]

ok..so let me get this straight..because some Wal-Mart developer, who is probably a pedophile sees a picture of naked babies (which is very common for people to take pictures of their children in the tub), and freaks out, and makes people spend $75,000 on legal bills, and they want to sue Wal-Mart, and we agree, that makes us pussies. Listen..just because you're a creepy little bastard who probably lives in mommy's basement and has no social life, that doesn't mean that we're pussies because we're normal people. Here's a hint. If you get into a conversation, and everyone disagrees with you, you're normally wrong...either that or an idiot. With you, I'd say it's both.

no, ya'll are pussies because noone in this thread agrees with the walmart employee (except for ploto, who is dumb) yet you still give your pussy opinion as if you're saying something new and insightful. cry havoc is NOTORIOUS for this. he thinks he's reeeeeaaaaal smart, and you're just like him, pussy.

[thispego]

:lmao i mean read this and till me this kid isn't a little twat


Maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.

I'm sure my mommy has a few photos of me sans clothing when I was little. She must be a pedophile.

[CuckingFunt]

I'm far more concerned about the person that sees a picture of a naked four-year-old in a bathtub and thinks it's inherently sexual than I am about the person who takes a picture of their young child in the bathtub.

As someone said earlier in the thread, nudity =/= pornography.

[thispego]

=/=

:lmao

[Spursfan092120]

no, ya'll are pussies because noone in this thread agrees with the walmart employee (except for ploto, who is dumb) yet you still give your pussy opinion as if you're saying something new and insightful. cry havoc is NOTORIOUS for this. he thinks he's reeeeeaaaaal smart, and you're just like him, pussy.
You remind me of the neighbor on American Beauty. Everyone's a pussy...I'm a pussy, he's a pussy..when deep down...you're just really fucking gay, dude, and you're trying to hide your homosexual tendencies with what you think makes you sound more like a man, when really, it makes you sound like a homosexual douchebag.

[thispego]

You remind me of the neighbor on American Beauty. Everyone's a pussy...I'm a pussy, he's a pussy..when deep down...you're just really fucking gay, dude, and you're trying to hide your homosexual tendencies with what you think makes you sound more like a man, when really, it makes you sound like a homosexual douchebag.

no just you and him are pussys.

dude from american beauty? wtf? what an obscure comparison. i would expect that from some pussy who just got back from a creed concert (and LOVED it)

[Kori Ellis]

I think most parents take baby photos in the bath (there's actually one of me posted by timvp somewhere on SpursTalk).

And it's probably store policy that they have to report these kind of things.

However since the couple had their home searched, their kids taken from them, and the case actually went to court (before the judge threw it out), then the prosecution thought there was enough evidence to charge them. So for all we know, there might have been a lot more found than the initial Walmart photos for the case to go this far.

[MiamiHeat]

I think most parents take baby photos in the bath (there's actually one of me posted by timvp somewhere on SpursTalk).

And it's probably store policy that they have to report these kind of things.

However since the couple had their home searched, their kids taken from them, and the case actually went to court (before the judge threw it out), then the prosecution thought there was enough evidence to charge them. So for all we know, there might have been a lot more found than the initial Walmart photos for the case to go this far.

and there also might not have been.

Prosecutors and policemen are 'gung-ho' sometimes and may have an agenda. They sometimes push a case through that should never have been pursued in the first place.

Remember the Duke university rape case?

Fighting child pornography sounds pretty damn good when you are asking for votes or a job promotion.

[Kori Ellis]

and there also might not have been.
...

Of course. When someone says "might have been", that means that there also might not have been.

I'm just saying that we don't know much from this news article.

[thispego]

alls we know now is that lots of spurstalkers are pro baby bath time photos

[Kori Ellis]

alls we know now is that lots of spurstalkers are pro baby bath time photos

:lol

[spursfan09]

I have a picture of me naked in the kitchen sink from when I was a baby. Not only was it indecent, but somebody needs to let the authorities know that my naked butt was probably sitting on some soggy food from dinner that night. Blah!

[MiamiHeat]

Of course. When someone says "might have been", that means that there also might not have been.

I'm just saying that we don't know much from this news article.

so, if we have nothing to prove that it might have or might not have been, what's the point in saying it? :)

your post was making assumptions about a 'might have been' as if to say that you believed there might have been some solid evidence or else they wouldn't have taken the case very far.

so, I made a post explaining why 'it might not have been'

but your response to me is "oh well, i was just saying it COULD happen"

well, ok? duh ;p

[Spursfan092120]

no just you and him are pussys.

dude from american beauty? wtf? what an obscure comparison. i would expect that from some pussy who just got back from a creed concert (and LOVED it)
you are such an idiot. Do you have anything knowledgeable to say or is it all just running your mouth?

[MiamiHeat]

you are such an idiot. Do you have anything knowledgeable to say or is it all just running your mouth?

you sure it's his mouth running?

cause he stinks up the threads he posts in

[Kori Ellis]

so, if we have nothing to prove that it might have or might not have been, what's the point in saying it? :)

Because it looked like everyone in this thread that was outraged by it had assumed the only thing the police/prosecutors were going on were the Walmart photos. So I was bringing up the possibility of more evidence.

[MiamiHeat]

Judge wouldn't have dropped it if there was any solid evidence to give it merit.

Seems to me like an overzealous cop and prosecutor who took this too far.

Americans nowadays suspect the worst in each other.

[thispego]

Judge wouldn't have dropped it if there was any solid evidence to give it merit.

Seems to me like an overzealous cop and prosecutor who took this too far.

Americans nowadays suspect the worst in each other.

judges are people too. what one might consider inappropriate, another might not. prolly could have gone either way

[thispego]

you are such an idiot. Do you have anything knowledgeable to say or is it all just running your mouth?

everything i say is knowledgeable. i'm just here to help you out. why are you attacking me when i'm just trying to make you a better poster and person?

[thispego]

you sure it's his mouth running?

cause he stinks up the threads he posts in

if you can smell your threads you might have a problem with your computer

[ploto]

The person who reported the photos is a woman, and she was following store policy, as I stated. As Kori alluded to, the police did confiscate 20 more photos from the home.


Peoria is defending its investigation of a couple who temporarily lost custody of their daughters after taking nude photographs of the girls.

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree are now suing Walmart, the city and the state over the incident, which began when a Walmart photo clerk found eight photos with nude images of the children among a group of 144 family photographs dropped off for developing.

Peoria police were called, and, after viewing the photos, launched an investigation.
"The fact is: When we are contacted about children who may be at risk, we investigate," said a statement issued Friday by the city. "This is what we should do."

The parents' three young daughters were taken from their home for more than a month while the state investigated the couple for possible child sexual exploitation.

The Demarees, who held a news conference on Friday, insist that the photographs were simply innocent bath- and playtime snapshots of the girls, who ranged in age from 1 1/2 to 5. A judge agreed with their description, and the couple regained legal custody of their kids in May.

A redacted copy of a Peoria police report released Friday describes the images in graphic detail.

The 57-page incident report describes the Walmart photos and about 20 others taken during a police search of the Demarees' home.

According to one of the investigating officers, "The photographs depicted three young girls in various states of nudity, and several of the pictures depicted close-up views of the girls' genitalia."

The report also quoted the Walmart photo clerk as saying the photos went beyond what she considered "normal" child bath-time photography.

The police report, which was distributed to media outlets, was released with a statement from City Attorney Steven Kemp defending the Peoria police.

"The city stands behind the appropriate actions of our officers," Kemp said. "The city will vigorously defend against these accusations."

Richard Treon, the Demarees' attorney, challenged the police officers' evaluation of the photos, saying, "that's in the eye of the beholder."

He referenced the ruling from Superior Court Judge J. Richard Gama that sided with the Demarees.

"There aren't any close-ups (of genitalia)," he said, dismissing the police report.

During the news conference Friday, the Demarees lashed out at state Child Protective Services investigators, who they said ripped their crying and screaming children out of their arms.

"It was awful," recalled a tearful Lisa Demaree. "I couldn't tell them where they were going."

Neither parent was charged with a crime. The Demarees are suing over the economic and emotional damage they say the incident caused.

In a lawsuit that also named the state Attorney General's Office as a defendant, the Demarees claim that employees from each party defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.

The Attorney General's Office and the state Department of Economic Security, which oversees Child Protective Services, have yet to comment on the suit.

Treon said the couple spent more than $75,000 fighting the state to regain custody and Lisa Demaree could not work as an educator in the Peoria Unified School District for a year while the investigation was being conducted.

In a separate suit, the Demarees claim Walmart is also at fault for not divulging that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement. The lawsuit claims Walmart committed consumer fraud.

A spokeswoman for Walmart released a brief statement Friday, saying, "These are sensitive allegations, and we're taking them very seriously."
http://www.azcentral.com/community/peoria/articles/2009/09/19/20090919walmart0919.html

[timvp]

Not a good month for MiamiHeat . . .

[MiamiHeat]

Tell that to the Judge who dropped the case. Unless you think it was me. I could be a judge I guess

[thispego]

crazy case! miamiheat got served by that article right there!

[Cry Havoc]

crazy case! miamiheat got served by that article right there!

Yeah, you're right. This case was handled perfectly.


In a lawsuit that also named the state Attorney General's Office as a defendant, the Demarees claim that employees from each party defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.

[thispego]

i believe that as much as i believe there were actual close-ups of genitalia