Downtown Delaware tattoo parlor under investigation

KATE LIEBERS

Staff Writer

The Delaware County Gen­eral Health Dis­trict (DGHD) and the Delaware Police Depart­ment are inves­ti­gat­ing alle­ga­tions that Fantasy’s of the Flesh tat­too par­lor, 46 E. Win­ter St., gave two under­age girls, ages 12 and 14, body pierc­ings with­out parental consent.

Accord­ing to the Ohio Revised Code, it is a crim­i­nal offense to pierce an indi­vid­ual under 18 years of age with­out a guardian’s con­sent. To do so is a mis­de­meanor of the fourth degree.

The ORC also for­bids minors from giv­ing false iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, which is a mis­de­meanor of the first degree.

The DGHD on Mon­day received a com­plaint about the pierc­ings, which prompted the inves­ti­ga­tion. The teens report­edly received a navel pierc­ing. Delaware police are also look­ing into charges related to unruli­ness on behalf of the minors as well as the piercer, said Capt. Bruce Pijanowski.

Pijanowski said the minors could be con­sid­ered unruly for pur­su­ing a pierc­ing with­out parental con­sent, and the employee who con­ducted the pierc­ing could be charged with con­tribut­ing to that unruli­ness. The lat­ter is a first-degree mis­de­meanor; the poten­tial penal­ties for the minors are unclas­si­fied, Pijanowski said.

The names of teens involved were not released.

“It’s an unusual case for us to be look­ing at,” Pijanowski said. “Cer­tainly some­thing we would pur­sue when a par­ent has an issue like that.”

Delaware Gen­eral Health Dis­trict Pub­lic Infor­ma­tion Offi­cer Jesse Carter said the dis­trict “can­not recall such a prob­lem being reported here in our dis­trict in the past.”

In addi­tion to the cur­rent crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion, Fantasy’s of the Flesh recently received sev­eral health code vio­la­tions related to the parlor’s pierc­ings pro­ce­dures. The vio­la­tions included hav­ing incom­plete client release forms. The forms failed to include details such as the client’s date of birth and proof that a minor’s pro­ce­dure had a guardian’s consent.

Reg­is­tered Nurse Melissa Adams, who con­ducts the DGHD inspec­tions, said the par­lor was in the process of becom­ing fully com­pli­ant with pierc­ing pro­ce­dure when the under­age pierc­ing com­plaints were filed.

Fantasy’s of the Flesh owner Jason Parks expressed inter­est only in tat­too­ing when he obtained his per­mit in 2011, Adams said. He decided to add pierc­ing ser­vices in late Sep­tem­ber or early Octo­ber, but did not have a des­ig­nated piercer at that time, she said.

DGHD received paper­work regard­ing his pierc­ing pro­ce­dures this month. Adams and another inspec­tor made many edits, includ­ing elim­i­nat­ing an oint­ment from the after-care prod­uct list that is not rec­om­mended by the Asso­ci­a­tion of Pro­fes­sional Piercers, Adams said.

The paper­work raised “a lot of red flags,” Adams said.

The DGHD con­ducted its annual inspec­tion of the par­lor on Jan. 18, five days before receiv­ing the two com­plaints regard­ing the pierc­ing of minors.

With the parlor’s paper­work still in need of revi­sion and with­out a con­firmed staff piercer, DGHD was unaware that Parks had begun offer­ing pierc­ing services.

“He just kind of started doing it,” Adams said.

She also said that Parks advised that he had been per­form­ing some pierc­ings, but not nec­es­sar­ily all.

Parks was cer­ti­fied to tat­too peo­ple but, because the DGHD con­firmed this cer­ti­fi­ca­tion when Parks was only inter­ested in open­ing a tat­too par­lor, it is unknown whether he is cer­ti­fied to per­form piercings.

Parks said that he was not the per­son who pierced the minors, and the employee who did has been fired.

Parks declined to com­ment on whether the employee checked the girls’ iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, but pointed toward a sign on the front door of the par­lor that reads, “Must be 18 or over to enter! Have ID ready!”

“So tech­ni­cally, she was tres­pass­ing,” Parks said.

Parks and the police declined any fur­ther com­ment about the com­plaints, as the inves­ti­ga­tion is ongo­ing. The health dis­trict declined to detail what penal­ties the par­lor may face as a result.

In response to the vio­la­tions, the health dis­trict has sched­uled a follow-up on Feb. 1. If the prob­lems have not been reme­died by that date, the parlor’s per­mit could be sus­pended or revoked.

Posted by Kate Liebers on Jan 26 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.