Consent form for 12 year old

SalonGeek

Help Support SalonGeek:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chinju

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
109
Reaction score
30
Location
Sutton
Hi All
Please may I ask if anyone knows where can I find consent forms for Gel Polish nails for a minor ( 12 year old)? She is coming with her guardian and I wanted to ensure we have a consent form to do gel polish.
Thanking in advance lovelies !!

xxx
 

perfect10kb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
238
Location
Northamptonshire
Have you checked with your insurance to see if you are covered for this even if the guardian does give permission personally I would not do gel polish on anyone under 16 . How is she going to remove it as she certainly will not be a regular customer .
Can you not suggest regular polish instead ?
 

NancySyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
673
Location
Boston, MA USA
This is not a good idea. Nail enhancements, including gel polish, on children is clearly against manufacturer's instructions. That means that your insurance won't cover you, no matter whose consent you have. It is not a good idea legally and it is a very bad idea medically. Most dermatologists and pediatricians would recommend against gel polish for a child. And while one can quibble over what age constitutes a child, 12 is too young.
 

Haircutz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Premium Geek
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
10,813
Reaction score
7,012
Location
West Cork, Ireland
Please don’t do that.

At that age she’s going through puberty and her developing body will be changing very fast. If she develops an allergy to acrylates, it will be an allergy for life!

Methacrylates are commonly used in medicine and if she does become allergic, it will limit some future treatments as I know to my cost!!
 

Haircutz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Premium Geek
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
10,813
Reaction score
7,012
Location
West Cork, Ireland
I deleted the above post as it contained inaccurate and potentially dangerous advice.

Here in Europe, we have far more stringent regulations covering chemicals used in the hair and beauty industry and especially regarding their use on under 16yr olds, which I presume the poster was unaware of.
 

tuna816

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
I deleted the above post as it contained inaccurate and potentially dangerous advice.

Here in Europe, we have far more stringent regulations covering chemicals used in the hair and beauty industry and especially regarding their use on under 16yr olds, which I presume the poster was unaware of.
You are misusing your moderating powers.

You don't know anything about the ingredients used in nail products nor can you establish a credible link to the immune systems of 16yr olds, in which these ingredients will do damage.

This isn't medicine where you are ingesting ingredients. If you are so scared of chemicals, don't use shampoo, soap, hand sanitizers on kids younger than 16.

If OP don't want to work on those younger than 16, that's fine. But this thread is a discussion on the validity of the fears. And since Haircuts don't know how to moderate, she's deleting my post, thus negating different views of the subject.
 
Last edited:

Noodle

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Premium Geek
Joined
Sep 13, 2004
Messages
21,013
Reaction score
2,251
Location
United Kingdom
You are misusing your moderating powers.

You don't know anything about the ingredients used in nail products nor can you establish a credible link to the immune systems of 16yr olds, in which these ingredients will do damage.

This isn't medicine where you are ingesting ingredients. If you are so scared of chemicals, don't use shampoo, soap, hand sanitizers on kids younger than 16.

If OP don't want to work on those younger than 16, that's fine. But this thread is a discussion on the validity of the fears. And since Haircuts don't know how to moderate, she's deleting my post, thus negating different views of the subject.
@tuna816, just because you have a different viewpoint, it doesn’t mean that you can disrespect the actions of the Moderation Team, who act when they see fit and as appropriate.

@Haircutz deleted your post, because the advice given within it was considered to be dangerous and more especially as the OP is based in the United Kingdom, the deletion is justified.

The OP hasn’t actually yet revisited Salon Geek since posting her thread by the way, just in case you were wondering.
 

tuna816

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
@tuna816, just because you have a different viewpoint, it doesn’t mean that you can disrespect the actions of the Moderation Team, who act when they see fit and as appropriate.

@Haircutz deleted your post, because the advice given within it was considered to be dangerous and more especially as the OP is based in the United Kingdom, the deletion is justified.

The OP hasn’t actually yet revisited Salon Geek since posting her thread by the way, just in case you were wondering.
My opinion was in no shape or form was aimed at "disrespecting" or "insulting" the moderation team.

True, there was a time when I was very outspoken and my choice of words were disrespectful. But I am no longer that way. People do change and they learn.

I am not a medical doctor, nor is anyone here on SalonGeek.com. But there are things that I do have knowledge in regarding nail products and it's connection with health. Which btw is a very niche body of knowledge. So haircut's call on my post being potentially dangerous or not has no merits, as she provided no basis for concern, other than "it's potentially dangerous".

There are certain things that are indeed dangerous without having medical knowledge. But ingredients in nail products causing reactions based on AGE isn't valid. That is my argument.

For those who know me, I will argue that MANY products are very low quality and WILL cause allergic reactions. But never have I heard of AGE being a factor for if you will get sick.

So haircuts deleting my post is unjust, uncalled for, and unscientific.

The problem I have with her and other mods deleting my posts, is that now you create an environment where you create your own narrative, that doesn't look at things from a different viewpoint. And if something I say happens to be correct, but you don't have enough knowledge to agree with me, you create even more danger - the very thing you are trying to prevent to the industry.

All I ask is that mods restore my my deleted post.
 
Last edited:

NancySyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
673
Location
Boston, MA USA
I did not see your post, so I cannot respond to its accuracy, however, the nail manufacturers' association is VERY clear that nail enhancements are not appropriate for children. I've consulted both pediatricians and dermatologists and they were equally clear that nail enhancements, including gel polish, are not appropriate for children. A couple were horrified at the thought! The reasons were clear - that children's immune systems were not fully developed and the potential for developing sensitivities was higher in a child; that children are not good at the required aftercare (neither are many adults!); that a child's exposure to the sensitizing agents was greater due to the likelihood of ingestion; that once developed these allergies are for life which is a long time for a child and with a number of unknown possibilities for products in the future per Haircutz's post; that gel polish means posing the child to UV light and to acetone, a powerful defatter as well.

If your post did not adhere to our own product manufacturers' instructions (yes, including CND), then it did contain dangerous info, it was problematic, and it merited deletion.
 
Last edited:

tuna816

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
I did not see your post, so I cannot respond to its accuracy, however, the nail manufacturers' association is VERY clear that nail enhancements are not appropriate for children. I've consulted both pediatricians and dermatologists and they were equally clear that nail enhancements, including gel polish, are not appropriate for children. A couple were horrified at the thought! The reasons were clear - that children's immune systems were not fully developed and the potential for developing sensitivities was higher in a child; that children are not good at the required aftercare (neither are many adults!); that a child's exposure to the sensitizing agents was greater due to the likelihood of ingestion; that once developed these allergies are for life which is a long time for a child and with a number of unknown possibilities for products in the future per Haircutz's post; that gel polish means posing the child to UV light and to acetone, a powerful defatter as well.

If your post did not adhere to our own product manufacturers' instructions (yes, including CND), then it did contain dangerous info, it was problematic, and it merited deletion.
I will dive further into this and see if it is correct.

So I just looked into this.

I was correct. There is NO scientific data supporting the idea that getting acrylics, gels, and polish is anymore dangerous by being under 16 or 12, through harming the immune system.

CND does not forbid use based on age. Nail manufacturer association also does NOT forbid use of acrylics based on age either.

What can be dangerous, is how the child takes care of enhancement. And it is up to the parents to decide this. It's common sense parents don't let a child of 12 get acrylics anyways.

Now, all I ask is my deleted post to be restored and all will be forgiven.
 
Last edited:

NancySyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
673
Location
Boston, MA USA
I will dive further into this and see if it is correct.

So I just looked into this.

I was correct. There is NO scientific data supporting the idea that getting acrylics, gels, and polish is anymore dangerous by being under 16 or 12, through harming the immune system.

CND does not forbid use based on age. Nail manufacturer association also does NOT forbid use of acrylics based on age either.

What can be dangerous, is how the child takes care of enhancement. And it is up to the parents to decide this. It's common sense parents don't let a child of 12 get acrylics anyways.

Now, all I ask is my deleted post to be restored and all will be forgiven.
The fact that you didn't find this is troubling - https://www.probeauty.org/docs/nmc/gel_manicures_pedicures.pdf

But this is a medical issue, so if you can find me a single dermatologist or pediatrician who okays nail enhancements on children then I'll back off. But I have already discussed this with several derms and peds over many years and they were unanimous in their blanket prohibition of nail enhancements including gel polish for children. And yes, immune system development was just one part of their rationale.

Tuna816, you have routinely and repeatedly given false information in this forum - a simple search under your various names will reveal this. So you will forgive me if I decide that I will take medical information, especially about children's health and development, from reputable, qualified medical professionals rather than a nail tech.
 

Trinity

Brush Slayer Geek
Premium Geek
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
3,984
Location
Brighton, East Sussex
I will dive further into this and see if it is correct.

So I just looked into this.

I was correct. There is NO scientific data supporting the idea that getting acrylics, gels, and polish is anymore dangerous by being under 16 or 12, through harming the immune system.

CND does not forbid use based on age. Nail manufacturer association also does NOT forbid use of acrylics based on age either.

What can be dangerous, is how the child takes care of enhancement. And it is up to the parents to decide this. It's common sense parents don't let a child of 12 get acrylics anyways.

Now, all I ask is my deleted post to be restored and all will be forgiven.
Show us your source data. To say 'I've looked in to this. I was correct' means nothing without evidence to support your statement - you know this.

Whilst you say you've changed, some if your in this language is derogatory and rude. I suspect your passion for what you say over rides your respect for others and your wording becomes unpleasant. You have made great strides in your growth, please mainly your standards and say polite.

This article from Professional Beauty Direct will demonstrate the view of one of the insurance companies here in the UK. (This relates specifically Acrylic Nails but personally I would apply their reasoning to Gel/Gel polish as many of the ingredients/prep products/risk crossover)


Where are our other Stateside Techs like @jlsdds???

We've discussed the differences in training before, what are the guidelines mentioned in your training manuals/insurance?
 
Last edited:

tuna816

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
The fact that you didn't find this is troubling - https://www.probeauty.org/docs/nmc/gel_manicures_pedicures.pdf

But this is a medical issue, so if you can find me a single dermatologist or pediatrician who okays nail enhancements on children then I'll back off. But I have already discussed this with several derms and peds over many years and they were unanimous in their blanket prohibition of nail enhancements including gel polish for children. And yes, immune system development was just one part of their rationale.

Tuna816, you have routinely and repeatedly given false information in this forum - a simple search under your various names will reveal this. So you will forgive me if I decide that I will take medical information, especially about children's health and development, from reputable, qualified medical professionals rather than a nail tech.
I just read that article. All it says is that they don't recommend it for children. That does NOT mean it's dangerous to the IMMUNE SYSTEM based on age. They could be concerned about children picking or peeling, which ends up damaging the nail. Yes, that is true. But that is why parents should teach and be selective about their children getting this service done. Again, this has nothing to do with the immune system being weaker and more susceptible to getting sick from the ingredients.

This isn't a medical issue. Because if it were, major companies like CND would have already stated a clear warning saying that children are not allowed to use acrylics or gels. If this was a medical issue, whats stopping you from using shampoo on your child? There are ingredients in shampoo that can cause allergies just as there are in nail products. At the most, shampoos will just tell you to stop using the product if you develop rashes or reactions. It doesn't prevent you from using it based on age.

I consulted the leading scientist in this matter. He stated the immune system and age is irrelevant. The cause for concern based on age is damage of the nails due to picking, peeling, damage, and misuse.

And you keep saying I routinely give false information. Yeah right. You just don't agree with what I say based on your own understanding, doesn't mean it's false information. Of course I'm not always right, but I don't go out of my way to give false information.

This article from Professional Beauty Direct will demonstrate the view of one of the insurance companies here in the UK. (This relates specifically Acrylic Nails but personally I would apply their reasoning to Gel/Gel polish as many of the ingredients/prep products/risk crossover)

This insurance don't allow anyone under 14 to get those services. Understandable. Kids don't get their nails done enough to warrant concern about losing business.

But my argument is really about the nail products and the immune system of a child.

But all in all, I agree with Haircuts and I retract my original statement. Children under 12 shouldn't be allowed to get acrylics. It's just safer that way.

Here in the states, we don't have to have insurance. So what happens in the rare case when a 13 year old comes in with her parents and wants a full set done? He parents consented and says she's responsible. Do you turn her away? I wouldn't.
 

Trinity

Brush Slayer Geek
Premium Geek
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
3,984
Location
Brighton, East Sussex
Here in the states, we don't have to have insurance. So what happens in the rare case when a 13 year old comes in with her parents and wants a full set done? He parents consented and says she's responsible. Do you turn her away? I wouldn't.
I explain my concerns, offer manicure services with normal polish, if they decline my suggestions then yes I turn them away. My reputation and conscience are worth more than hard cash. Ultimately I'm not interested in clients who don't trust me to do whats right for them and me. That means working within my training and insurance parameters.

All it says is that they don't recommend it for children. That does NOT mean it's dangerous to the IMMUNE SYSTEM based on age.
In truth no business is going to openly say 'don't use our product because it's dangerous' that's business suicide and opens them up to and endless law suits, etc.

They will say 'we don't recommend' - why would that make that distinction if the product was safe to use? They wouldn't.

The damaged caused to children's immunity by many, many chemicals previously used extensively in day to day products is becoming more and more prevalent, even fetuses show damage from products containing PFAS. I suspect there is no article that says 'do not use nail products on children' in the same way there is no article that says 'don't use non-stick cookware' but the link is well known and documented, so one has to use the information available to make judgement calls.

We are shown more and more that children's entire biological systems are more susceptible to damage as they grow, develop and mature than adults so why introduce chemicals that are potentially damaging during this more vulnerable time for the sake of pretty nails.

I suspect the issue is ultimately driven by attitude of the tech. I work within the guidelines, some do not. I encourage others to do so, others do not.

I guess we come back to my usual mantra 'do your own research' - read as much as you can information is so readily available thesedays, get advice where possible, make your own decision.
 

jlsdds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
125
Reaction score
114
Location
Lubbock, Texas, USA
Hi All
Please may I ask if anyone knows where can I find consent forms for Gel Polish nails for a minor ( 12 year old)? She is coming with her guardian and I wanted to ensure we have a consent form to do gel polish.
Thanking in advance lovelies !!

xxx
Ok, I have taken a break from the forum and look at what I’ve been missing!

In the US, States and local governments have control over practices and procedures. I’ve practiced in 3 states and none of them required professional insurance. Also, education requirements are different, continuing education is a patchwork, and oversight by regulating entities is spotty. I don’t know the reason for this lack of regulation. Maybe, because there are nail salons on every corner, about 60K in the US.

I don’t mind government oversight. It’s usually conservative which means not much room to dispute or err. In Austin, Texas, in the ‘80’s we had one inspector who came on time and was meticulous. In the state of Indiana, she came once when we opened and we never saw her again. For 15 years.

i envy the regulation you have in UK. Seems to be professional and demands accountability.

Personally, I choose not to service any child with gel or acrylic. I will manicure and pedicure to correct nail biting or tearing. I have used water-based polishes for little ones for special occasions, wedding perhaps.
One has to know that peeling, biting and scraping is exactly what they will do.

Even for high school functions, I use tips with glue layers instead of acrylic or hard gel. The nails will end up on the floor at the end of the night no matter what. It’s not right to put on something semi-permanent that is only a prop essentially.

I would never assume to counsel based on medical knowledge. And although I did work as a midwife for 8 years, I don’t think that qualifies me to lecture on potential immunity hazards, chemistry, etc.

Its just best practice and common sense that I’ve followed.
 

NancySyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
673
Location
Boston, MA USA
This isn't a medical issue.

I consulted the leading scientist in this matter. He stated the immune system and age is irrelevant. The cause for concern based on age is damage of the nails due to picking, peeling, damage, and misuse.
Of course, it's a medical issue. The application of any substance to one's body is a medical issue. It's about how the body responds to substances and how substances impact the body. It's as much a medical issue as using nail enhancements on diabetics, or people with cancer, or numerous other conditions. And it is a medical issue how nail enhancements impact the health of nail professionals. To say it's not medical is absurd, and undermines the extent to which our profession is a self-care and wellness profession governed by those principles.

And I see that you're already backing down on parts of your statement.

The leading scientist in this matter!? Please identify him. Is he an MD or even have a credential in biology? If he supports your position, have him come public with it so we can have a proper conversation/debate. We already know who you're talking about. Doug Schoon is not going to say it's okay to use nail enhancements on children - not going to happen. He is a responsible scientist. You've been asked this many times and you have yet to produce a single person supporting your positions. I've had this conversation many times with many medical professionals and they are unanimous in their blanket prohibition. As I said, I'd prefer to get information on health and safety from medical professionals than from a nail tech who consistently gets his facts wrong. And yes, you do seem to go out of your way to make incorrect statements. Or at least, you don't go out of your way to make correct ones or to be respectful to others! And that alone merits the mods considering deleting your posts.
 
Last edited:

cola

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
14
Location
Australia
Scientific research on products is usually driven by money, it's usually sponsored by the manufacturer and if it doesn't agree with what they want the research to 'prove', it often is stopped before anything is published. It's a brave researcher that notices something and starts researching without financial sponsorship.

Relying on research to prove something, relies on unbiased research to have occurred, and that is a rare thing because of the money. If there is no research available, you have to consider why there is no research available. No research does not necessarily mean it is safe, it usually just means it's not worth proving it is unsafe.

There is no money in proving nail enhancements are not safe for children, so it's not specifically researched as that topic that can be 'found'.
There IS research on chemical loads in general, which comes down to avoid as much exposure as possible for foetus and children because overexposure to chemicals causes problem eventually. It can just be sensitivities rather than full on allergies, but you never know what will be the critical load to cause problems. It's recognised it's not just one chemical, or even a few specific chemicals, that can cause problems, it's the total 'chemical load' of everything combined.
 

jlsdds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
125
Reaction score
114
Location
Lubbock, Texas, USA
Well said, Cola.
The world is drowning in a glut of information. Trying to sort through is laborious and so often inconclusive.
I worked with Doug Schoon in the early 80’s when Creative was beta-ing light cured gel. Is he the only one to listen to? I read and re-read his manuals. Informative but it’s not exhaustive. And I don’t think he would want us to believe he is the alpha and omega on nail care.
Humility goes a long way. It’s not always ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’. I like this product and you prefer brand X. Tell me why and maybe I’ll try it. Or, maybe I won’t. You don’t work in my shop so you won’t know what I’m doing.

I think these moderators do an awesome job. Having to read all these posts and wade through unhelpful diatribes would put me over the edge. One reason I dropped off for a bit.

I like to learn how business in general is progressing. How products, old and new, are being used. New regs and laws. What’s fun about your life and work. What’s a challenge.

And, remember PitaBread? She is doing great. Fully vax and working in a shop again. We keep up on insta and she really is a dear. Phobias under control and nails and cuticles look fab. That’s the kind of support we need and give.
 

tuna816

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
Of course, it's a medical issue. The application of any substance to one's body is a medical issue. It's about how the body responds to substances and how substances impact the body. It's as much a medical issue as using nail enhancements on diabetics, or people with cancer, or numerous other conditions. And it is a medical issue how nail enhancements impact the health of nail professionals. To say it's not medical is absurd, and undermines the extent to which our profession is a self-care and wellness profession governed by those principles.

And I see that you're already backing down on parts of your statement.

The leading scientist in this matter!? Please identify him. Is he an MD or even have a credential in biology? If he supports your position, have him come public with it so we can have a proper conversation/debate. We already know who you're talking about. Doug Schoon is not going to say it's okay to use nail enhancements on children - not going to happen. He is a responsible scientist. You've been asked this many times and you have yet to produce a single person supporting your positions. I've had this conversation many times with many medical professionals and they are unanimous in their blanket prohibition. As I said, I'd prefer to get information on health and safety from medical professionals than from a nail tech who consistently gets his facts wrong. And yes, you do seem to go out of your way to make incorrect statements. Or at least, you don't go out of your way to make correct ones or to be respectful to others! And that alone merits the mods considering deleting your posts.
This is getting quite out of hand. Again, this is not a medical issue. Why not bring up nut allergies or nickel allergies while we are at it? Why not bring up car crash statistics?

We already know that the ingredients in nail products can cause allergic reactions. Its nothing new.

My original point was, a 12 year old is no more likely to become allergic or sick from acrylics than an older person. And that it is SAFE to use acrylics or gels on them, in this regard.

What is NOT safe, is how the ignorant child may damage their nails. That much I agree on. And that is why the experts do not recommend acrylics or gels. And it is why insurance don't allow service on certain age.

But the argument that the immune system of a younger child is more prone to damage by nail ingredients has no basis or backing. That is why it was my opinion that it's safe to give acrylics to 12 year old, under parent consent and supervision.
 

NancySyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
673
Location
Boston, MA USA
This is getting quite out of hand. Again, this is not a medical issue. Why not bring up nut allergies or nickel allergies while we are at it? Why not bring up car crash statistics?

We already know that the ingredients in nail products can cause allergic reactions. Its nothing new.

My original point was, a 12 year old is no more likely to become allergic or sick from acrylics than an older person. And that it is SAFE to use acrylics or gels on them, in this regard.

What is NOT safe, is how the ignorant child may damage their nails. That much I agree on. And that is why the experts do not recommend acrylics or gels. And it is why insurance don't allow service on certain age.

But the argument that the immune system of a younger child is more prone to damage by nail ingredients has no basis or backing. That is why it was my opinion that it's safe to give acrylics to 12 year old, under parent consent and supervision.
It is not recommended by our governing bodies to use nail enhancements, including gel polish, on children. Full stop.
As responsible nail techs, that should be our advice to the OP.

But again, you are missing the point. It is already an established medical fact that a child's immune system is less developed than an adult's. But what is also a concern is the long lasting impact of developing sensitivities at a young age - burdening someone with cosmetic allergies at age 12 is very different than at age 40. Your research is faulty. A quick Googling would reveal numerous statements like this "There are medical reasons why makeup isn’t good for your young ones. First, a child’s skin is thinner and has a decreased barrier function as compared to adults, said Dr Lynn Chiam, dermatologist with Children & Adult Skin Hair Laser Clinic. The skin’s barrier function refers to its ability to keep moisture in and damaging elements out “and children’s skin is less able to defend itself against irritants,”
she said." Or this - Letting your child use makeup, hair dye or nail polish might lead to skin and hair problems. Or this, What kids should know about nail care.

Tuna, you need to back off and take counsel with yourself. When we deny the potential negative impact of our services and products, we undermine consumer faith and confidence in us. Your stubbornness in the face of facts is legendary, but your refusal to acknowledge/defer to the medical facts on this is troubling. Your conduct on this matter, as well as many others in this forum, is deeply damaging to the profession.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top