http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8947407

Children taken away due to action of Walmart employee and supidity of child services.

Wow I'm mad.

What part of the story makes you Super mad? The fact that the children were removed from the home, or the fact that the psychologist gave 'real' answers that fall in line with raising kids and nudity?

Her one comment about the fact that she seems to find kids raised in a conservative, restrictive home are more likely to have exhibitionist, or inappropriate behavior issues, is totally supportive and in line with nudism philosophies and body acceptance from a real young age.

S

I would agree that parents having their kids taken away for totally innocent photos is intolerable, but it's a sign of the nanny state that wants to control every second of our lives and dictate what is and is not acceptable.

Without a doubt, Walmart has a corporate policy that requires their photo departments to report any images of child nudity, period. This would be the inevitable consequence of hypersensitivity based on the explosive growth of child pornography on the Net. That policy has existed for decades in photo-processing companies, even to the chains of little offices in parking lots, e.g., Fotomat. The policy was heard of much more often before digital cameras took over, and people had to submit their films to a third party for development and printing. Ergo, individual cases did not draw nearly as much attention.

The individual employees have no say in this, although how stringently they enforce the policy is less fixed. One would suppose that most employees make no judgment calls, but simply do what they are told and let others sort it out, regardless of who gets hurt.

One thing is dead certain: real kiddie porn perverts don't take their evil wares to Walmart for processing. It is thus safe to conclude that if a photo arrives there that shows a nude toddler in a bathtub, it is innocent. What is needed is a corporate policy revision that acknowledges that not all youthful nudity is offensive, let alone pornographic. It can be hoped that the lawsuits will hammer the company and the city hard enough that they won't want to go through it twice, and will look at their policies to see what can be modified to stop turning innocent parents into pedophilic sex fiends.

As for the psychologist, she has her head screwed on right, athough she obviously would not advocate for innocent family nudity if she likes her job. The prudists who believe that humans are born wearing Pampers, and that nudity is the tool of the devil, would rake her over the coals. Ergo she has to choose her words carefully

First of all never, never, never have Walmart process photos that could be even close to showing nudity in children. If you have a picture of a three year old girl without a top on have it processed elsewhere.

Unfortunately there are people in CPS that think all nudity is bad and do not understand how nudists actually live. They shoot first and ask questions later. As nudists we have to stand up and educate them.

I think you will find that the children that become easily traumatized by nudity are the ones whose parents brought them up that way. They were not born with that problem it had to be taught.

"Body shame, like prejudice, is not natural. It is learned from others and benefits no one."

It can happen anywhere if one of the social services gets a hold of it. All nudists should use digital cameras!!

What part of the story makes you Super mad? The fact that the children were removed from the home, or the fact that the psychologist gave 'real' answers that fall in line with raising kids and nudity?

Her one comment about the fact that she seems to find kids raised in a conservative, restrictive home are more likely to have exhibitionist, or inappropriate behavior issues, is totally supportive and in line with nudism philosophies and body acceptance from a real young age.

S

Having the kids taken away is ludicrous.

the kids being removed from their families has to be ten times more traumatic than having their picture taken while naked or seeing mom and dad naked.

the kids being removed from their families has to be ten times more traumatic than having their picture taken while naked or seeing mom and dad naked.

I would say make that a ten thousand times.
Being nude or seing nudity doesn't harm any kid in any way, the reaction of the adults around that kid can.
Fear of nudity is teached, they are not not born that way.

While I am completely amazed that child services actually took the children away from their home and parents for a month for innocent photos of bath time is complete ridiculous, I applaud that the story at least tried (not very well, but OK) talk about nudity in the home. It's a shame that a puritan at Walmart and other puritans at child services felt such a strong reaction to what seems to be very innocent photos.
I would guess alot more parents will not be having the old time picture of the kid naked on a bear skin rug.

I'm surprised that you're just hearing about this story. It happened a few years ago in Peoria AZ and was widely reported. Peoria is a neighboring city of Phoenix and we had ongoing news reports on this story. Most of the major parts of the story were picked up nationally. In Arizona Child Protective Services, CPS, has a long history of making boneheaded decisions. Unfortunately most of their wrong decisions involve leaving a child in a home where a real danger exists. This has resulted in several dead and many maimed children. All efforts to investigate this corrupt organization have been met with claims of privacy requirements. There is something very rotten at CPS and the whole department needs to be disbanded. I hope these people win their lawsuit but this piece did not mention if CPS was also a defendant in the lawsuit.

Any updates on how this turned out? Were they sued. Is the CPS still in place.  There is one screwball heading that up.

Ah the hypocracy of Walmart. Next time you go to Walmart see if they have this album in their music department.

http://www.amazon.com/Houses-Holy-Led-Zeppelin/dp/B000002J0B

Walmart is violating their own policies if they do. I see they pulled this album off their website so it may not be available in stores anymore.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8947407



Children taken away due to action of Walmart employee and supidity of child services.



Wow I'm mad.

Can you give us an update on this case?

Im gonna get nuked for this but I fell it should be out there. DESPITE the fact that the Wally world employee violated the customers privacy by looking at the photos, barring that...they saw something out of their norm, it involved children so they reported it. In my job, I err on the side of caution and triple check anything having to do with kids. Heck, I had a purse turned into me, found on the side of the road, inside was a 14 years olds ID card and a POSITIVE pregnancy test. I called Dad, not her and just gave him the purse, open so he could inventory it. He already knew, and there was already charges filed. Sorry to say, as nudists we have to be extra "clean" when it comes to anything dealing with kids.

Then explain why does Walmart sell products that has videos of nude kids in them if they are so concerned about this issue. This DVD has a scene with a 5 and 3 year old dipping in a mountain stream.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Led-Zeppelin-The-Song-Remains-The-Same-Music-Blu-ray-Widescreen/11007542

Im gonna get nuked for this but I fell it should be out there. DESPITE the fact that the Wally world employee violated the customers privacy by looking at the photos, barring that...they saw something out of their norm, it involved children so they reported it. In my job, I err on the side of caution and triple check anything having to do with kids. Heck, I had a purse turned into me, found on the side of the road, inside was a 14 years olds ID card and a POSITIVE pregnancy test. I called Dad, not her and just gave him the purse, open so he could inventory it. He already knew, and there was already charges filed. Sorry to say, as nudists we have to be extra "clean" when it comes to anything dealing with kids.

Most of the people who get busted for naked baby pictures aren't nudists. Nudists know to either print their own picture or have a photo service develop them for them. The parents who bring these pictures to Walmart think it's just an innocent thing and are doing the same thing that their parents did. Just another example of big govenment.

Your action with the purse may have broken HIPPA laws. This girl could file a civil lawsuit against you for violating her privacy rights.

Im gonna get nuked for this but I fell it should be out there. DESPITE the fact that the Wally world employee violated the customers privacy by looking at the photos, barring that...they saw something out of their norm, it involved children so they reported it. In my job, I err on the side of caution and triple check anything having to do with kids. Heck, I had a purse turned into me, found on the side of the road, inside was a 14 years olds ID card and a POSITIVE pregnancy test. I called Dad, not her and just gave him the purse, open so he could inventory it. He already knew, and there was already charges filed. Sorry to say, as nudists we have to be extra "clean" when it comes to anything dealing with kids.

Why did you impose your morality on the girl or her parents? Give him the purse by all means but......open? No, I dont think so. Totally unwarranted intrusion into someone elses life.

Annnnnddddd.... how would you know who owns the purse unless you open it & check?

ABC News seems to have eluded the main point of the subject matter in this story by segueing from discussion about children being photographed nude and just general nudity in the family home. Those are two different issues altogether and though I am a believer that nudity in itself is not harmful so long as everyone involved has a clear understanding of what nudity is and why they choose to be nude, I'm also a strong believer that when it comes to children, letting cameras get involved in the scene merely opens up too many possibilities for consequences should the pictures or videos surface in the wrong place or get into the wrong hands.
Though I also believe strongly that the actions taken against the Damari's including CPS taking their children away for a month and placing both parents on a National sex offender list that they will probably NEVER have the chance to be removed from is much too extreme beyond belief, I believe that this is the way Law Enforcement sends a very strong message out to everyone that any kind of photographing or videographing of nude children is going to get thoroughly investigated, period. All Law Enforcement needs is just one image like the ones the Damari's had in order to justify launching an all-out investigation and believe, investigators will dig deep for further evidence of possible violation of Law and without relent. Investigators will NOT back down until everything is torn apart and thoroughly investigated, inside and out, upside-down, back, fourth and sideways. Extremely fatal results are imminent in the event Law Enforcement gets the opportunity to investigate something they will deem as being a potential legal case so it is best not to even give them that opportunity in the first place because all they need is one shred of evidence that they can make a case out of.
But as for the photo processing companies, what might folks here feel would be a better and more civilised way a situation of discovering photos of nude children in the prints they are processing for their customers should be? Should they call the customer about it? Should they merely refuse to process any images they would deem as being potentially risky when it comes to the possibility of their company being investigated?