Does any1 know how old a child has to be in order to have their ears pierced in the u.k? Someone i know recently had their childs ears pierced and shes only 5 weeks old, surely that cant be allowed? Would it constitute as child abuse?
Thanks
2007-03-13 08:15:26 · 37 answers · asked by heather 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Newborn & Baby
I don't know about the U.K., but when we pierced our daughter's ears, she had to be at least 2 months old (had to have her first shots, before they could be pierced). And no, it's not considered child abuse. If it was, then it wouldn't be done at stores and shops. Some doctors will even pierce the child's ears for you.
2007-03-13 08:25:07 · answer #1 · answered by Aaliyah & Natalie's Mommy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Im not in the UK but I do know that here in the US I saw a woman at the mall the other day with her baby getting her ears pierced and she was about 4-5 weeks old. I dont think theres an actual limit on the age of that.
2007-03-13 08:19:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I was a baby in Cuba, they had my ears pierced when I was only days old. They practically did it on newborns! No, it is not child abuse, but doctors do recommend that you wait until the child is 4 to 8 years old to do it. There is a risk if the ear gets infected that the baby can get very sick from the infection. So it's just better to wait, but you can't accuse someone of child abuse because of this, it won't hold up in the courts.
2007-03-13 08:40:08 · answer #3 · answered by Astrogal 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about the U.K., but my ears were pierced at 4 days old. It is pretty common in my culture to do so. I am pretty sure that it is not considered child abuse.
I like that it happened that young. I was not able to mess with the earrings and now as an adult the holes wont close no matter how long I go without wearing earrings.
2007-03-13 08:21:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mom23 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't know what the minimum age limit is for ear-piercing in the UK is, in the States it is not child abuse if you have your child's ears pierced at 5 weeks old. Only you know what is best for your child and I would recommend getting your little one's ears pierced when the BOTH of you are ready.
2007-03-13 08:27:41 · answer #5 · answered by rrichards2k3 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I've heard 4-6 weeks. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It would not constitute as child abuse! The child is young and won't remember the pain and after a little while don't even realize the earrings are in her ear.
2007-03-13 08:20:24 · answer #6 · answered by Shannon 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I was 4 months but they did get infected so i really don't know. I should imagine 5 weeks is way to young. The ears are still growing alot at that time. I would wait till they are a bit longer. The ears may mess up as they grow older
2007-03-13 08:19:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No of course not. There is no minimum age, when I was little my toddler friends had their ears pierced!
It isn't child abuse. Child abuse is when you go out of your way to make a child hurt or upset, you're only piercing their ears for goodness sake!
2007-03-13 08:22:23 · answer #8 · answered by ellietricitycat 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I evaluate that that's thoroughly as a lot because the mummy and dad. I had my sons left ear pierced at the same time as he replaced right into a pair of days historic, at the same time as his twin sister had hers finished, yet afterwards i wanted that I had pierced each his ears. As right away as their ears had healed I had her ears double pierced, and he had a 2d hollow in his left ear, and also his correct ear pierced for the first time. i love it at the same time as boys have their ears pierced at the same time as they're children/little children, and diverse my acquaintances have also had their boys ears pierced at a tender age. i think that at 6 years historic he's honestly historic adequate to have his ears pierced, yet at the same time as he does he ought to get each ears finished, no longer basically one.
2016-12-01 22:51:34 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately no, it wouldn't count as child abuse as there doesn't appear to be any legal age limit-and I had a good scout about on the net to see if I could find one.
Know what you mean though-personally I don't understand why you would want to inflict pain, however short lived, on a baby when there was no need to, never mind the risk of infection.
Guess at the end of the day it's each to their own-no matter how inappropriate or unnecessary you or I may deem it!
2007-03-13 08:34:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋