Big Charge Dismissed in Case of Dad Tattooing 7-Year-Old

by Amy Hatch (Subscribe to Amy Hatch's posts)
Oct 2nd 2009 3:30PM

Filed under: In The News, Weird But True, Extreme Childhood

Enrique Gonzalez allegedly had his son tattooed with a gang symbol. Credit: Fresno Police Department / AP

A California judge ruled that a Fresno man accused of giving his 7-year-old son a gang tattoo will not face charges of aggravated mayhem, which would have carried a life sentence.

Enrique Gonzalez, 26, was arrested in April when the boy's mother, Tequisha Oloizia, discovered the quarter-sized mark on the boy's hip -- in the shape of a dog's paw, a symbol of Fresno's notorious Bulldogs street gang, according to The Associated Press,

Gonzalez allegedly told her that it was just a misunderstanding and that he would have it covered with flesh-covered ink.

Gonzalez and a friend, Travis Gorman, were originally charged with aggravated mayhem, a felony that can result in a life sentence. Defense lawyers argued that the tattoo was no different than circumcision or piercing the ears of a baby girl, according to the AP. The charge of aggravated mayhem was dismissed Oct. 2.

Gonzalez and Gorman still face up to 10 years in jail and are now charged with child endangerment, according to the AP. Because the tattoo is a gang symbol, the two are also charged with enhancements related to gang activity.

Case law required that a certain level of permanent disfigurement be present in order to warrant a charge of aggravated mayhem, according to the AP, and Fresno County Superior Court Judge Hillary Chittick ruled in favor of the defense assertion that a small tattoo does not rise to the level dictated by the law.

Police there have been engaged in a three-year battle with the gang, sweeping neighborhoods and announcing arrests to the media, according to the AP story.

In California, tattooing a child under the age of 18 typically results in a misdemeanor charge.

Public opinion about the story is heated, according to the AP. "I had mothers calling me from Australia wanting to get this guy," said Det. Jesse Ruelas.

Law professor Laurie Levenson, director of the Center for Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School told the AP that Gonzalez could argue that he didn't intend to harm his son.

"It's an interesting issue," Levenson said. "I don't think kids belong to their parents. You can give a child the haircut you want him to have, but you can't permanently disfigure a child."

Was the judge right to reduce the charges?

ReaderComments (Page 1 of 5)

Add Your Comments

10-02-2009 @ 4:22PM

Cassie said...

I can understand if it had something to do with the culture. That's expected, but to tattoo a gang sign onto a child is wrong, the guy should be sent to jail.

And no the judge was not right at all to reduce the charges, the guy tattooed a gang sign on his child's hip for peat sakes..

Unless it's for culture nobody has any business tattooing a child.. let alone tattooing a gang sign on there body.

10-03-2009 @ 1:55PM

Simzee said...

Gee, the tattoo was for culture. So therefore it's OK to do it. Yea ok.

10-03-2009 @ 3:26PM

landers said...

Sorry, Cassie, but a gang symbol is cultural. Gangs, like it or not, are a part of popular culture, and it's obviously a big part of that man's life and identity. Who says culture has to be defined as ancient?
Maybe it's not your idea of culture. It's not mine either and I think the man is clearly a moron. All I can say is he wouldn't be doing that to my child because I'd be smart enough not to have kids with this man. But, when his lawyers compare it to piercing the ears of a baby girl...well, he's got a point, there. It's just part of popular culture in the US for most of us but may still be considered barbaric to some.

10-06-2009 @ 7:37AM

carl said...

the judge is wrong lets tattoo is grand kids

2-14-2010 @ 5:55PM

lonestarry said...

Putting a gang tat on a child is not in any way "cultural". The child isn't old enough to decide if he wants to be part of the gang and is not property to be branded by his POS father. (and by the way, it's Pete's sake. Wierd expression but you might as well spell it correctly. Peat is a type of soil---hey, wait, that DOES describe this guy, lol)

10-02-2009 @ 5:15PM

Hollee Temple said...

Great story! Personally, I feel that unless it is a cultural rite, I think parents should let kids make this mistake on their own as teenagers.

10-03-2009 @ 7:16AM

forpostingonly said...

HOLLEE: You need to read the article more carefully!! The 7-year old kid didn't wake up, decide to get a gang tat, and walk into a tattoo parlor/pay all by himself!!! There was no major decision by this 7-year old. The FATHER made the decision, and in my opinion, it was despicable.

10-03-2009 @ 7:49AM

Dude said...

forpostingonly, what are you bitching about? I think you need to read the previous comment more carefully. What is your malfunction?

10-02-2009 @ 9:28PM

C. Leonhard said...

Great article - creepy dad. He didn't just tag a wall in his neighborhood with his gang sign. He tagged his 7-year-old son. While it's true that some cultures involve ritualistic body painting and tatooing, gang culture is not a culture that is supported by the majority in the United States - which California is a part of... for now.

Aggravated mayhem seems like a disproportionate response that may have been viewed by the judge as a stretch. However, I agree with the child endangerment charge and I think that they should also tack-on something about contributing to the delinquency of a minor, gang recruiting, and charges of that ilk.

10-03-2009 @ 11:53AM

troubled said...

You got it, I totally agree.

10-03-2009 @ 6:35AM

Bud Foster said...

I don't see that this is any big deal. It's a bad idea but it darned sure isn't mayhem, and it's quite a stretch to call it child abuse.

10-03-2009 @ 9:33AM

SolarTempest1859 said...

I have to say that I disagree with you there, Bud Foster. Children aren't property and that is what he treated that child like.

10-03-2009 @ 10:57AM

BJ Mullins said...

Let me get this straight.......As mother....if I take my open hand and give him a smack on the butt...to teach him right from wrong....thats child abuse and I go to jail and loose custody if my child. HOWEVER....to repeatedly stick his little body with a needle...over a period of 20 to 30 minutes....while injecting an unnatural substance into his skin....leaving a life long mark on him........is not child abuse. Very interesting. So next time my child does something wrong...I will just take out a needle and stick him with it for 20 minutes........sound OK to every body????

10-03-2009 @ 1:00PM

gAIL said...

I realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's just that yours is moronic.

10-03-2009 @ 7:44AM

hoggy said...

I think the father should have "JACKASS" tattooed acrossed his forehead

10-03-2009 @ 11:54AM

heidi said...

I totally agree with you,great comment.

10-03-2009 @ 7:56AM

Josh said...

As someone who is Pacific Islander, and in our culture children get tattooed when they become "men" (12-16), I find this highly inappropriate. Like one poster said. It's one thing to "own" the child as in giving them the haircut you want (kind of like how my parents never let me rock out a bowl cut, thankfully), but it's another deal to put a child through that kind of pain and trauma. Believe me. Tattoos hurt the first time around.

All and all, I find it very sad that the judge reduced the charges. I sincerely hope that the child is OK. Something like that can be very traumatizing. And this is coming from a person who doesn't even like kids that much. I just hope the judge does the right thing.

And as for the defense saying it's like piercing ears... Ears close up and aren't permanent if they decide they don't want them. Tattoos are. Even if you laser/use flesh colored ink on them, there is still a little bit of a reminder where it is. That's the worst argument I have ever heard.

10-03-2009 @ 8:30AM

J.E. Ibarra said...

This is the most sensible commentary that I have seen.

ThommieRoxs06 said...

Does anyone ever want to know what the kid thinks? If my parents asked me if I wanted to have a paw print tattooed on me at 7, i definitely would have jumped at the chance, whether it was a gang symbol or not. I also know that I would have known what a tattoo was at 7, but I wouldn't have known what a real gang was at 7...

So, maybe this dad was using his child to spread a gang symbol, or maybe the dad was just joking with his buddies, and his kid overheard and decided he wanted a tattoo...It isn't the best scenario, but I don't think you can blame the father without asking the child.

meaghan said...

I can ask my 2 year old if he wants a tattoo and he's probably say yes. This was a 7 year old boy whose father held him down while a friend tattooed him, most likely in an unsterile environment. It's sick and sad. JMO

12 3 4 5 Next 20 Comments

Hot on HuffPost Parents:

Big Charge Dismissed in Case of Dad Tattooing 7-Year-Old