Mother Lets 10-Year-Old Son Get A Tattoo From A Teenager
If you ever wanted to get a tattoo when you were younger but your mom told you no, you’re probably extremely thankful for the fact that you don’t have something your pre-teen self might have liked inked on your body forever.
Unfortunately for this kid, his mom didn’t give him that same courtesy.
A mother has now been arrested for allowing her 10-year-old son to get a tattoo, allegedly because she was tired of him always begging to get inked, according to Columbus, Ohio, TV station WSYX/WTTE.
The news outlet has reported that 34-year-old Nikki Dickinson was charged with first-degree misdemeanor child endangerment and contributing to the delinquency of a minor after a video of the tattoo session went viral around the internet.
Court documents that were obtained by the news station read that the 16-year-old tattoo artist — identified as Kyle Richardson of Lakeview by the Bellefontaine Examiner — if known for often giving tattoos at his home. WSYX/WTTE also reported that the teen may have tattooed someone else who subsequently developed MRSA, a staph infection.
The Bellefontaine Examiner reported further saying that the artist was charged with “performing tattoos in a manner that doesn’t meet safety and sanitation standards, and tattooing in a manner that does not meet sterilization and disinfection standards.”
Last week, the outraged Facebook comments poured in on the video, which led to multiple calls to the Bellefontaine Police Department. “The phone has not stopped ringing,” the officer recounted to WSYX/WTTE. “We’ve gotten calls from several different states [from] people that are concerned about the welfare of this child.”
While the mother does in fact face charges, it is not necessarily illegal to tattoo a minor in the state of Ohio. According to state law, “No person shall perform a tattooing procedure, body piercing procedure, or ear piercing procedure with an ear piercing gun on an individual who is under eighteen years of age unless consent has been given by the individual’s parent, guardian, or custodian in accordance with division (B) of this section.”
Though the Dickinson family’s tattoo decision seems to meet these requirements, according to reports, the state laws also require that the procedure meet safety and sanitation standards–which, as aforementioned, is questionable, in this case.