Patty Jo Marsh and her husband, Jacob Bartels, are facing child cruelty charges for tattooing six of the seven children that live in their home. The youngest child tattooed was 10 years old. The Georgia parents don't see anything wrong with placing permanent marks on the children, particularly because they say they barely broke the skin and changed needles with each marking.
"We didn't even break the skin barely," said Marsh, "they are very tiny, just through a few layers, on the top. They will fade away, that's how minuscule this is."
According to police reports, the youngest member in the household is 7 years old, but the parents decided against tattooing that child. The couple's 17-year-old has a very large tattoo on his arm, which Marsh says her husband created with a homemade tattoo gun that uses a guitar string as a needle. The mom admits she tested the gun on herself first to make sure that it would not harm their children.
State laws in Georgia prohibit the tattooing of minors. Marsh and her husband claim they were not aware of such laws. The mother does contend, though, that the children begged for the tattoos, and as the children's parent, she should have a right to do what she wants, "Shouldn't I have say so over what goes on in my child's life?" asked Marsh. "I have custody of my child, I'm not going to hurt my child."
Marsh and Bartels were arrested when the mother of another child discovered a tattoo on the couple's daughter's hand and contacted police. The couple faces multiple charges, including child endangerment and cruelty to children. The Georgia Department of Family and Children's Services has stepped in to further investigate the matter. The seven children were removed from the home temporarily, but Marsh says her children were released back to her under a parent plan until the case heads to court.
A court date has not been set for Marsh or Bartels.


Comments: (8)
Add a comment
By: Tired of Poor ME attitude on 1/05/2010 3:41PM
White Trash idiots. They need to lose their kids for a while....
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Shaiye on 1/05/2010 9:27PM
Of course they should be punished if they tattooed someone else's child, especially without permission. A lot of minors want things like tattoos, piercings, and haircuts. I think they should have tried to put the markings in less conspicuous places like on the back or shoulder, because when another parent's child sees them they will certainly want one, and that child may not have the same lifestyle, that could accommodate something like that. If the children are not being put in danger and the marking wont last forever, I don't see why not. This is where accountability comes in, that is a pair of parents who isn't saying 'Rap music ruined my child's life!' They are saying, 'We make these decisions, we're going to try to make the most of them somehow.' As for the other children that want them, well it's up to their parents to say no and try to help them understand the reasoning behind it.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: James Loewen on 1/06/2010 10:51AM
I suspect these ignoramuses will get a very slight slap on the wrist for this. If parents can legally cut off part of their male children's genitals (circumcision) then the law is not going to find them guilty of anything too serious here.
Particularly because the tattoos were of religious symbols the law will not come down too hard on them. If these dumb parents are punished severely for a light tattoo then perhaps society will have to start treating circumcision for what it is, genital mutilation, surgery without consent.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Kevin Elks on 1/06/2010 11:47AM
This is typical of parents that consider a child as 'their' property to do with what they wish. A child is an adult in waiting and parents have a responsibility AND a duty to care for them as *custodians* of the adult the child will become. That means keeping the child whole and safe until such time as the child becomes of legal competence 18 to 21 years of age. No marking, no body modifications, no indoctrination, this is all according the the United Nations Rights of the Child and common decency.
There is enough of child abuse already, not by any means least of all 'circumcision' that is sexual abuse forced on a powerless child, another thing the adult the child will become has to live with for the rest of their lives.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: WhatUneverknew on 1/06/2010 2:04PM
Keep in mind that if this woman wanted to chop of her son's foreskins (likely already done) everybody would be fine with it. So how is it you can't put a tiny ink mark on a kid's skin but you can cut the skin OFF of the genitals? If they found some proof that the children felt harmed then I can see taking action, but they consented.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Kevin Elks on 1/06/2010 4:18PM
WhatUneverknew,
You talk about consent and that the children consented. A child cannot consent unless he/she has reached legal competence, that is the law.
Secondly you wrote: "If they found some proof that the children felt harmed then I can see taking action,"
It is not for for the child to prove harm or anyone else. It is for the person inflicting something upon another to prove they have done no harm. This is the basis of criminal law in relation to victim and perpetrator. The prosecution only has to prove that the law was broken or that there was an incident contra to the natural stance.
To say that they consented, how so? The child is still in the stage of development, it is more relevant to say how the adult will see his/her marking or amputation when they get older and independant (legal competence).
I go back to what I said previously, 'we are custodians of a child, until they become adults, we do not own them'
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Rood on 1/07/2010 1:15PM
Yeah, it's similar to the City of San Francisco which recently outlawed the declawing of cats, while parents and doctors chop off the prepuce of innocent infants in city hospitals without so much as a ho-hum.
Evidently these Georgia backwoods "parents" are unsophisticated bores, but then, so is practically everyone else in the USA. One million male infants suffer genital mutilation every single year.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: ltj on 1/08/2010 3:31PM
They are not livestock.
Reply to this Comment | Report This