While some teenage boys might nominate her as “mother of the year,” Judy H. Viger, 33, has been arrested on five counts of endangering the welfare of a child after she allegedly hired strippers to perform at her 16-year-old son’s birthday party.
Prosecutors insist that the dancers (who did not strip nude) did perform intimate dances and that five of the kids were younger than 17. Police also reported that several kids at the party got lap dances. However, there were over 80 kids and adults at the party watching the performance of women from “Tops to Bottoms.”
I find the party wildly inappropriate and I would be exceptionally ticked off if I was not told about the theme (and I would not allow my kid to attend the party). The picture below does show how inappropriate the party was. I cannot imagine any parent watching this type of display, let alone arrange it. However, the question is whether it is a form of endangerment, particularly if the parents of the boys were present. What is interesting is that the parents of the other boys could also be charged under this standard:
§ 260.10 Endangering the welfare of a child.
A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when:
1. He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the
physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years
old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation
involving a substantial risk of danger to his or her life or health; or
2. Being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the
care or custody of a child less than eighteen years old, he or she fails
or refuses to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child
to prevent him or her from becoming an “abused child,” a “neglected
child,” a “juvenile delinquent” or a “person in need of supervision,” as
those terms are defined in articles ten, three and seven of the family
3. A person is not guilty of the provisions of this section when he or
she engages in the conduct described in subdivision one of section
260.00 of this article: (a) with the intent to wholly abandon the child
by relinquishing responsibility for and right to the care and custody of
such child; (b) with the intent that the child be safe from physical
injury and cared for in an appropriate manner; (c) the child is left
with an appropriate person, or in a suitable location and the person who
leaves the child promptly notifies an appropriate person of the child’s
location; and (d) the child is not more than thirty days old.
Endangering the welfare of a child is a class A misdemeanor.
The use of “moral welfare” in the language is highly problematic from a constitutional standpoint. Since there was not physical harm, the only enforceable basis would be mental harm. Would watching or even participating in a lap dance be mentally harmful for a 16 year old boy today? Should this be charged as a crime?
Source: New York Daily
77 thoughts on “New York Mom Arrested For Hiring Strippers For Son’s 16th Birthday Party”
Stupid kids especially teenage boys watch porn and having sex and they get Mar about a stripper dancing get a life
Religious people arrest. Don’t people remember who got his ear healed when it was sliced off?
Forget the past. Forget the future. Be here in the now.
Same problem IMHO.
I stick my nose into other persons’ dialogues. Trying to stop. Maybe same bind there.
Years ago I had a job operating a punch press. After several weeks I found out that most of my early work was trashed because it did not meet the standards (I wasn’t cleaning the die often enough). For reasons that are unknown to me, no one told me about my error/improper work (and I assumed my work was meeting the standards so I had no motive to change what I was doing).
The point? Sorry if I have repeatedly misidentified you, Mr. Spindell, and the same to Mr. Spinelli, but until now I was not aware of my repeated errors. Now that my attention is drawn to it, I’ll be more careful. (Of course now that it’s on my mind, it may become a self-fulfilling error, the same way that when someone writes: what ever you do, don’t think about elephants, the reader does think about elephants.)
A thrice made mistake will get you shot in many circles. We use only words to kill. Take note Hamsh*t.
Thank you twice — first for your response and second for the humorous response to my mistake. This is a case of not enough time to do it right…. (Or a case of me trying to rationalize my error. See Big Chill for the importance of such rationalizations.)
I only responded this time because it was at least the third time you’ve addressed me like that, perhaps confusing me with Nick Spinelli. So I perceived there might be something other than misspelling afoot.
I can see why this country has the HIGHEST incarceration rate the the WHOLE WORLD!!!
How she raises her kid is none of my business, let alone our nanny Government’s….
Age 16: you are old enough to drive a car. Age 18: you are an adult and are old enough to vote or consent to anything as far as the 26th Amendment is concerned. Our media wants to characterize adults as kids all the time. It is one thing to call some punk named Adam a punk but that is not calling him a kid. I say that if you are old enough to drive a car in New York then you are old enough to see some broad show some boob at a party. No one alleges that it was a porkin party. That prosecutor needs to move to Utah or perhaps Iran.
Using a worn phrase, I don’t drink coffee so my spewing with laughter was not dangerous.
1, February 21, 2013 at 7:04 am
Gee, I wish my mom had done that 52 years ago……
what, strip for 16y/o’s?
That was me above.
I would be strong on a motion to dismiss. There is nothing about sex in the statute and a stripper in person is no less than that which might be available on the television in the judge’s own home if he/she cared to tune in the right channels. “Endangering welfare” sounds more like getting the kid disqualified for food stamps.
Comments are closed.