Child Protection over Friends Only Facebook Pics

[HarrietSchulenberg]

At the nursery Christmas play parents were asked not to put photos on the internet in order to respect the privacy of other parents and children. I take internet security VERY seriously due to my paid work and that of my H, which requires absolute confidentiality. I am also a School Governor.

I put some pictures of my son on Facebook. My photos and profile are accessible only to my Friends, which comprise of a very small group of personal friends and family. The photos did not contain any reference to the school, the children (other than my son's first name), year group or other identifiable information. I never tag photos.

I received a phone call from the Child Protection officer from the School today. My photos had come to their attention and I was formally reminded of the need for internet security.

Through a process of elimination of my Facebook Friends (wasn't hard) I have worked out who is responsible. I am very hurt and surprised that this person has put me in this position, seeing as her own internet security is, at best, lax.

Have I been very stupid, or AIBU to think that I have not breached any child protection measures? I could just have well have printed the pics and shown them round at the school gates.

Niceguy there is no might in my case, last year a parent put photo's on FB, the DC Aunt saw it told her DH who showed it to a friend who showed to it the DC Mum and her 'boyfriend' who went to the school and attempted to take the DC, WHEN THEY FAILED WE HAD PETROL PUT THROUGH OUR LETTER BOX.
We have moved area, moved school lost touch with friends Can you honestly tell me I should not do everything I can to protect my DC from these people until a time they can make their own decisions?

Canyou - but you are just one person. Can you not see that to deny other people the right to send their un-edited photos to aunty Marjorie is an infringement of their basic human rights and besides auntie Marge is very lonely. It's political correctness gorn mad.

coming to this late but op yadbu

you are a school govenor, your husband works in a field where privacy is very important and yet you can't see that if you are asked NOT TO DO SOMETHING then you shouldn't do it!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't agree then campain=gn for the rules to be changed you are in a position as a govenor to do that, do not just disregard the rules.

canyou - hope you forgive my attempt to bring levity to a discussion in which certain smug terrys are not listening.

No problems Jaime
tbh if your Aunt Marjorie was like my older Aunties a bottle of gin and tkts to the nativity would be more welcome then any pictures

On that note. I really am out. Can't be doing with such blood pressure rises.

I'm just wondering what concerns people have about their children appearing on someone elses facebook page, if the pictures don't identify them by name and are not obscene.

Am I supposed to worry about someone doing something to my children or their images? I've got lots of pics of my children on facebook. Just wondering how I'm putting them in danger.

Cleo those of us who have concerns have specific concerns re family situations and the fact that if the DC were traced it would put then in known danger, or at least that is my case. It is not a general concerns as such more specific, As the OP put hers up with out knowledge or consent and does not know if there are vulnerable DC in the class/school.
TBH I wish there were better guidelines on this matter

The guidelines are crap, aren't they? I've tried looking at them in more depth and while they do make a clear distinction between the private use of photographs in a physical album and distributing them electronically, the information about enforcement is piss poor.

Can I just add that when we were adopting DS, (before the formal adoption, but during the time he was placed and living with us) - we were told in no uncertain terms that if we published or allowed to be published any photos of DS, then it would compromise his placement, and he could potentially be taken away from us (before the adoption order gave us parental rights) as SS could prove that we were unable to keep him safe. That?s how seriously they take it.

There are over 4 and a half thousand adoptions a year in the UK and there are over 42,000 children in the care system at any one time. This figure does not take into account the children who also need protecting for other reasons that may not be known to the SS but are known to their families.

This is hardly a minority. And as has been previously stated - many of these children?s birth families will actively look for the children who have been removed from them, and will become quite adept at finding ways to locate them. Publishing photographs against the adoptive/foster families requests is only going to assist this.

I genuinely don?t see the hardship here - just don?t publish photographs of other people?s kids! 5 years ago we didn?t have networking sites, and none of us suffered too much from it! If you really feel you desperately want to share a photo of other people?s kids, then just blur the image. It?s very very easy!

Even before I adopted and had DS, I would never have even considered that I had the right to distribute images of other people?s children, and would never have done so.

It is a minority, Sterry. Bit over 700,000 births each year, so about 12 million people in the UK under age 16. Of which, by your figures, less than 70k are adoptees -- many of whom are NOT at risk from their birth families. And another 42,000 in the care system (many of whom are not at risk from their birth families, either). Plus the ones you mention that won't be known to SS (I'll guess them at 88,000 to make the numbers nice, but 88k seems high to known be know by SS). So wouldn't be more than 200,000 children at very most in your possible at risk population, of which I'd guess at most really only 10% might be at some kind of risk.

200k out of 12million = 1.6% (that's using all the people you think might be affected, goes to 0.16% using my guess of 10% of the potential population). Those are quite small percentages.

Ok ?minority? was the wrong word - perhaps - ?not a small number? would have been better.
You know, in one of my classes (of 27) there are 4 at-risk children and a further 2 who are adopted. - just under a quarter.
I know, personally, of 6 cases in the last 18 months where birth families have tracked down children using the internet.

In my opinion, 1 is 1 too many. And if there are ways in which we can keep the risk down, then surely it is no hardship to do so.

I drive safely, I keep knives out of the reach of children, I don?t put hot liquids near them and I don?t light fireworks next to them. I do all of these things as it minimises the risk of them being hurt. I do think that not publishing photographs of vulnerable children on the internet is a very small ask.

But no one really knows how adoptive and foster families are having to deal with their situations. My son isn?t necessarily ?at-risk? of being identified or located. But I have still chosen to decline any photographs of him at nursery, and haven?t put a single one up on-line myself. I haven?t even emailed any photographs to friends. This is because there IS still a risk, although it is very very very slight, and we are not prepared to take any chances with our son?s safety.

Countless other parents probably feel the same way, for whatever reason.

And if any parent feels that their child is ?at-risk? of something, and there is a policy in place, then I really don?t understand why other parents or adults can?t comply with it.
Where is the hardship in another parent not publishing a photo of my child?

YANBU -it's bonkers

Well exactly, altinkum - my point is that it IS my choice, but whilst there is a protection policy in place, and I have specified that I do not want DS?s picture being published in any way, then I think we have the right to expect that it is adhered to.
If there were no protection policy in place, then it would be up to me and DH to ensure steps were taken to ensure DS?s safety. I don?t think that asking other parents to not take photos of DS is unreasonable.

I think the problem is, (and going back to the OP) that because some people in general think that the policies in the 1st place are ridiculous, then they don?t think that it matters if they disregard them. The policies are there for a reason (many of which have been identified on this thread), - if people don?t agree or approve of the reasons behind the policies, then they have every right to challenge them. But while they exist, people should comply with them.

Yes, am more than happy to remove my son from potentially risky situations. But I also think that other people should respect our choices if I request no pictures of him to be posted online.

One of my friends posted photos of him on FB when he was first placed with us. When I asked her to take it down she laughed and told me not to be so precious. I asked my SW to phone her to explain the potential risks, and our LA?s policy. She took it down, but I don?t allow her to take photos of DS any more.

It is ultimately my responsibility as a parent, but I would like to hope that other people can be respectful of the reasons why it worries me and people like me.

I?m not arguing with you, altinkum - I?m actually agreeing with you. I think that the compromises suggested on this thread are very sensible. I?m just reiterating some of my earlier posts in response to some of the other posters.

Altinkum, the main problem is that many schools do not have a photography session of the production or it is ignored.
My DC are not put in the class/school picture nor are they in the current nativity play because of that reason parents ignoring the photography rules].
I know and understand why parents want pictures I do not understand why they do not follow the rules
My DC school website has no pictures of their pupils just their art work, and I would be if they allowed no pictures at all but tbh I can see that happening soon due to the lack of respect parents show for the rules.
Hopefully the school will go with Jolyon's suggestion next year and they can be in the play