Mark Seamands On Trial Accused Of Branding His Children

**Hellsbells** · May 12th, 2010, 02:31 PM

PORT ANGELES, Wash. -- Trial is under way for a Sequim man who is accused of permanently scarring his three children by branding them like ranch cattle.

Mark Seamands is on trial for two counts of assault, accused of branding his 13- and 15-year-old sons. He also allegedly branded his 18-year-old daughter, but faces no charges in that case because she was old enough to give consent.

Seamands' ex-wife told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News that she was horrified 18 months ago when she saw that Seamands had branded their sons and their daughter with the mark "SK," for Seamands' Kids.

"My youngest boy, it's on his chest. My middle boy, it's on his arm and my daughter -- it's on the back of her leg," said Alison Davis, the children's mother.

"I don't know if you have seen an animal being branded, but I have. They squeal; they yell; they scream. It's nothing pretty," Davis said.

Jurors also heard testimony on Tuesday from the children's grandmother, who described her shock at seeing the brand.

"I reached up, put my hand like this and said, 'That must hurt,'" Pam Davis said.

Pam Davis said one of the boys showed her a cell phone video of himself being scarred.

"And he held it like this, and I started watching the video of him being branded and that's when it was too much. I just turned and walked upstairs," Pam Davis said.

The two boys are expected to testify and are expected to defend their father. They are reportedly proud of their brands and do not think their father did anything wrong.

It's an idea their mother and prosecutors reject.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/23524183/detail.html

**Athena** · May 12th, 2010, 02:46 PM

I saw these interviews and the testamony on the news last night (KIRO is my preferred brand for after-work news around here). The grandma's voice was cracking as she described seeing the cell phone video.

Mom says the kids have been "brainwashed" by their father. Either way, it was a stupid fuckin' thing to do, and it shouldn't matter much how the kids feel about it. You don't brand a damn 12 year old.

**Tundratot** · May 12th, 2010, 02:48 PM

Shaking head.

**Mystica43229** · May 13th, 2010, 01:05 PM

PORT ANGELES, Wash. - A Sequim father is on trial, accused of disfiguring his children in a painful ritual. He says it was all part of family bonding, but prosecutors call it family “branding.”
Mark Seamands calls himself a devoted father, and as such, he wanted a way to demonstrate that devotion to his three children. So, on Thanksgiving Day of 2008 he asked a friend, Denny Secord, to use a homemade branding iron to burn a family crest into his skin. It's something he’d been planning for months.
"I just heated it up and touched it to him and took it off," said Secord as he testified in court Wednesday. "I said, ‘Jeez did that hurt?’ He said, 'No, not at all.'”
Seacord says a short time later Seamands’ three kids showed up and excitedly asked to be branded themselves. Seamands admits he then took a propane torch, heated the iron up and branded Seamands' 13-year-old son’s chest and 15-year-old son’s arm with “SK” for "Seamands Kids."
A new family tradition had begun -- one the kids say they’re proud of. They don't think their dad did anything wrong.
"It’s different than a tattoo. It obviously means something to me and my family that's personal," said one of the boys. KING 5 is not indentifying them because they are minors.
This was all happening in the midst of a divorce between Seamands and his childrens’ mother – who Seamands says gave her consent for the brandings.
"I believe this amplified the fact that I would be there for them, through anything," testified Seamands.
But as opposed to a case of “father knows best", prosecutors say it plays more like “daddy dearest.” Seamands is charged with second-degree assault for “permanently disfiguring" his children.
Despite the teens’ support for their father, the law doesn’t allow them to determine whether they were assaulted because they're minors. It is now up to a jury to decide when a father’s love goes too far.
The father also branded his daughter, but she is 18 and there are no charges pending with her because she’s an adult.
Jury deliberations begin Thursday morning.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Sequ...-93576949.html

**Pete Bondurant** · May 13th, 2010, 04:36 PM

Father accused of 'branding' his children with iron

He is within his rights. He is the Pater familias.

**Marv** · May 13th, 2010, 04:38 PM

The kids wanted it, the mother consented to it, and the father did it.

This whole family are fucked up. I doubt there is a single functioning brain cell between all 5.

**Athena** · May 13th, 2010, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by ohmarvellousme!

The kids wanted it, the mother consented to it, and the father did it.

No, no... The father *says* the mother consented now that he's being prosecuted. The mother claims otherwise and is the one who brought the incident to prosecutors (if I'm not mistaken). After seeing the interview, the mother seems like a very reasonable person who is legitimately horrified by her exhusband's actions.

**Hellsbells** · May 14th, 2010, 11:28 AM

Wash. dad charged with branding kids is acquitted

PORT ANGELES, Wash. - A man in Washington state who branded his children like cattle has been acquitted of second-degree assault charges.

A jury in Port Angeles deadlocked Thursday on two lesser charges of fourth-degree assault, and a judge declared a mistrial on those counts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37141113/ns/us_news/

**Athena** · May 14th, 2010, 12:34 PM

Yeah, the jurors were dolts. They snagged one in the parking lot after the trial, and he was like, "Durrrr... Well, it ain't assault if the victim doesn't think they were assaulted..."

Never mind the fact that children are legally unable to consent.

Small town mentality.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · May 31st, 2010, 07:28 AM

Clallam County prosecutor Deb Kelly has declined to further press charges against Mark J. Seamands, a man who was acquitted of second-degree assault for branding his children.

The Peninsula Daily News reports that the county could have pursued charges of fourth-degree assault but declined to do so on Friday.

Seamands' two teenage sons testified that they had wanted to be branded.
[...]

Seamands' 18-year-old daughter also was branded, but the dad wasn't charged with assaulting her because she was old enough to give consent.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/95227869.html

Prosecuting Attorney Deb Kelly issued a statement Friday calling the branding "cruel and unusual" but said seeking a misdemeanor conviction "was simply not in these boys' best interests."
[...]

Troberg also said it was impractical to pursue the misdemeanor charge given the original jury's 6-6 deadlock.

"I don't have any new evidence or new witnesses that were not presented at the original trial that would make any significant difference," Troberg said.
[...]

The jury was swayed by the boy's testimony and their belief that assault is a crime committed against someone's will, jury foreman Arlin Lidstrom told Peninsula Daily News in an interview a few hours after the verdict.

"The jury had difficulty in determining if the father branding the boys was an assault," he said.

During the trial, Taylor had said that burning could constitute assault.

Dr. Laura Bullen of Peninsula Children's Clinic had testified that the branding caused second-degree burns on the boys.

Before jury members deliberated, Taylor instructed them that assault is "an intentional touching of another person, with unlawful force, that is harmful or offensive regardless of whether any physical injury is done to that person."

Taylor said, "A touching is offensive if the touching would offend an ordinary person who is not unduly sensitive."

He defined fourth-degree assault as: "A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth-degree when he or she commits an assault."

He defined second-degree assault as when a person "intentionally assaults another and thereby recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm."

"Consent," Taylor said in the instructions, "is not a defense to an assault on a minor child."

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ap...=2010305309991

**carolinablue** · May 31st, 2010, 09:48 AM

Well, I think Putrid P Worthless should be branded with a BIG effing CA for child abuser on his sloping forehead. Entitled moron; kids are not your possessions like furniture or cars. If the kids are so hot for permanent markings let them wait till they're old enough for a tatt.

**Knighted** · May 31st, 2010, 09:55 AM

6 of 12 on the jury were in favor of acquittal?

That explains alot about what's going on in the world right there...

**CasperGirl** · June 1st, 2010, 07:36 PM

13,15,and18. kinda split on this. I dunno. But with any luck at that young of an age in 10 years or so that brand won't be so noticeable. Then we should find those kids and see if they had it redone or not.

**brokenandtwisted** · June 1st, 2010, 07:47 PM

Has he confused his children with cattle? Is the family in a cult? Has he seen a shrink?

Lots of unanswered questions...did he brand himself with "FT", 'Fucking Tool'?