Is it unreasonable to expect parents to NOT take pictures at soft play when it is well posted that the centre forbids it?

[CurlyBoy]

I took my 2 yo boy to soft play today. One reason I like this one is that it has a policy of no photographs (the other is that they have proper coffee). This policy is well signed and is on the "rules" sheet that everyone should read and sign that they have done so. Our little guy is adopted and I can't risk any pics of him posted online. We really don't want the birth family to be nosing around. For all I know the photographer could be friends with the sister of birth dad or something.

Today I saw two different families photoing their kid. The first time I didn't say anything because my boy wasn't in the area but the second time he was. I asked a staffer if I was right about their policy (I was) and then asked her to make an announcement over the PA system to remind everyone.

If people can't follow the rules of an establishment then they shouldn't go. The policy is there for a reason!

I think the fact this boy could be recognised out on the street or photographed in the local park is a side issue - presumably the OP has to take this into account every time they go out. The point is the soft play area has this rule and that is why they go there - so they can relax and not worry about it for a couple of hours.

Frankly I'm a bit astounded how many people have said "This is a stupid rule so I'll ignore it". What has happened to consideration in our society?

The problem is these days, if one had to carefully consider every single rule and every other person's issues, no matter how small a % it impacts, you'd never get out of bed in the morning. So most people make a judgement call about what makes sense and what seems stupid.

What you have seen on this thread is many people think that this is a stupid rule.

Thus:

• No, yanbu to want people not to take photos
• but Yes, yabu to think they won't do it anyway.

Also, there will be far more occasions of the child being in public in the same town, that is a far bigger risk than a random photoshot at a soft play warehouse. If it were me I'd be thinking of moving town TBH.

CurlyBoy, I'm sorry that you're getting such a hard time over this. No, you are not being unreasonable, but I think without going through the years of adoptive prep.and training, and being taught the kind of risks that adoptive families face and how to assess them on a daily basis, most people will simply not understand the risk, because it has no bearing or implications for their family.
I am in the same position. I have fb with the highest security setting, but I have posted no photos of my son online. There are huge identifying risks, particularly with fb- so much so that there are seminars and national training events available through british adoption at the moment.
It is not farfetched to believe that birth family might get access to those photos...there could be very few degrees of separation. If they identify the child and the location, then there is a huge risk to the child and adoptive family. So much that I can't begin to go into it here.
I do know a family where the child was traced through a school photographer who posted images on their own website without permission. It didn't end well.
The thing is, adoptive families are trained to manage risk, and trying to avoid published photos is one way of doing that. We are not paranoid, nor do we live our lives in fear, but if there is the option of going somewhere where a small risk is eliminated by enforcement of the no-photo rule, then that is an option we should be able to take in peace.
Yanbu

I'd add that if anyone was really worried about someone tracing their child, the only sort of tracks you want on the internet is NO tracks.

At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail editorial. No pictures of children policies like this are absurd and really boil my piss.

These absurd restrictions seem designed to turn normal parental behaviour such as taking a snap shot of a child having fun in a park into the behaviour of a sex offender hell bent on noncing up other people's kiddies. Stupid thing is, it won't stop a single child from being abused. Not one.

I worked in a social care setting for a number of years and met a substantial number of people who had suffered horrendous sexual and physical abuse. However this had never occurred at the hands of a stranger who had whisked them away from a park/street corner. (not that this doesn't happen, it is a tiny minority of child abuse cases) It was almost invariably a family member who was responsible.

In adopting/fostering cases - Can anyone explain how a photo of an anonymous child that has wandered into the frame of another parent's picture, is in any way more risky than the child walking down the street?

ComposHat I have special guardianship of 3 DC we were repeatedly told about the dangerous of F/B the degree of separation, pictures identifying our area. We are in the position as I said above of our DD almost being snatched but that was through a school picture. I don't mind people taking pics and our DC have been told no pictures at school or in school uniforms, playzones etc don't bother me as much I would move my DC as that would not identify where we live, work, go to school etc and all the DC friends parents are made aware of their vulnerability and do not post pics online, the poor woman who took the picture that lead to DD near kidnap has never forgiven herself and more paranoid then I am.
I don't post pics of my DC on line or have a F/B since they came to live with us, I don't use on line photo printing etc but the paranoia that the SS and adoptive boards instilled in me has been toned down in the recent year. It might increase in the next week for a while as we are getting another DC and the reminders for safety are very fresh but it will all calm down again after a bit
I guess what i am in a long winded way saying is that all the checks and safety talks and advice we get through the process can make us very insecure and suspicious and scared so a little understanding may help while we learn how to manage the potential risk.

Because of the net and social networking durrrhhh

But I like lots of parents don't post photos online either. So photos I take could not be seen by anyone except my family.

canyou thanks for explaining and I may well have had similar concerns in your boat.

I can understand issues if somebody specifically tagged your child in a picture on FB or pictured them in school uniform, but from an outsiders point of view some of the advice you were given seems a bit heavy handed and smacks of arse covering on the part of social services.

It must be a difficult balance to strike between keeping them safe/letting them have a normal childhood.

But you don't know that a stranger (or friend) won't post a photo online that might have your adopted dc on it.
i have 102 fb friends...not many. But i am amazed by how many previously unknown "mutual" friends there are. For eg someone I went to 6th form with (100 miles away) now lives next door to someone i currently work with.
It isn't a great leap to assume that birth family MAY know someone on my friends list or MAY know a local stranger (as in stranger to me)
If birth famil happened to see a.photo that someone shared online that had my ds on it, in identifying surroundings, who knows how they would react? They have had several children forcibly removed. Birth dad is a convicted sex offender. If they see a photo in surroundings that they recognise, there is nothing to stop them from going to that place to see "their" child. Then what?
You may tall about bumping into them in the street- that is less likely. We know what they look like and where they live, and we avoid their locale. Also, a quick walk-past on the street is much quicker and isn't a permanent image that they can study until they are sure of identity. Also, as parents of a two-year old, we would be with him. It also doesn't identify our local area. At the moment, our ds's birth famil have no idea where in the country we live.
Look, all this is improbable and unlikely, and not something that keeps adoptive parents awake at night, but it is not impossible and there are several documented cases where this has happened. It isn't worth the risk IF it can be avoided. And Op has taken steps to minimise the risk. Of course we cannot wrap our children in a bubble, but as parents we do everything we can to mai them safe.
Some of you may think we are overreacting or paranoid, but if there was a known risk to your child, just ask yourself what you would do. Take every step possible to ensure the safety of your child.
adoptive parents are trained for these circumstances, and if we are fortunate enough to find somewhere that helps safeguard our children, then we are not being unreasonable in wanting to enjoy the facility.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll - I see no reason to tell a random stranger face to face that my son is adopted so please don't take pictures near him. I let a staff member make an announcement.

RemainsOfTheDay - He was removed at birth, the adoption is against their wishes and the father is a very violent offender. True, we ARE worried about bumping into them in the street so we avoid their end of town whenever possible.

sterrryerryoh - Thank you for explaining it so well!

But where does this end?
When the child goes to birthday parties are the hosts of the party banned from taking any photos on the off chance that they end up on the internet and someone gets recognised? Or will the child always be the odd one out that can't have their photo taken?
I do appreciate the fears and concerns OP but I don't see how keeping tabs on your child's photographic image is feasible in the long term.
My son's school is constantly in the local papers - sports and plays etc.
Will your child never be able to participate in anything like that? Seems an awful shame.
I am genuinely interested to know how this kind of thing works with adoptions that are against the will of the birth parents.

Curlyboy That is one of the reasons my friend chose to adopt from another town. (I am not saying you should have, but it does make sense)

I put photos of my DC on fb. If they have other children in, I get permission from the parents. If I don't know the other children, I either crop them out or don't post them on fb. I do alot of camping, and have, regularly, pulled the teenagers up for posting pics of my dc on their fb. There are no cp issues with them, and actually I don't mind them being there, I just point out to them that it is polite to ask first.

Once one person decides that the rules dont apply to them others will follow, assuming that the rule is enforced. Some people may be careful and only photograph their own children or crop out any other children others may be more snap happy.

For goodness sake, it is just one place where people are not allowed to take photographs. Is it such a hardship just to follow the rules?

These rules are there not just to protect adopted children but also to protect fostered children, children with hard won access restrictions, children who need their identity to be protected for reasons to do with their parents (eg children of offenders).

If it was your photograph which put the child at risk would you feel guilty or would you say the parent/care should have kept the child locked up at home?

You're right mishtake, it is a shame. It's a shame that we couldn't have our children naturally. It's a shame that feckless, violent parents have children they can't and shouldn't care for. It's a shame that my boy, though loved immensely, will always feel abandoned. It's a shame that he will have to be singled out, at least as long as we think he can't be recognised, because we will do anything to keep him safe. Yes, it IS a shame but that is the deck we've been dealt so we play it the best way we can.

It isn't just adoptive parents that have these fears. When a child is first removed ideally they should stay in the same Local Authority. This could be before an assessment has been done. The temporary emergancy Foster Carers do not want the locations that they are taking the children to possibly identified.

Mishtake - many schools manage this situation all the time. My DCs primary school had many children who could not be photographed or who's photographs couldnt go online. The school secretary was quite used to managing it. The children who could not be photographed would be discretely moved out of shot. When I went in once to take some photographs the children who couldnt be photographed really would not have known they were being steered out of shot.

The children didnt miss out on activities because they couldnt be photographed.

If there where 'photoing their kid' surely you could have just politely asked them to make sure they didn't get your child in their picture?

I think rules like this were made to stop people taking photos of other peoples children, not their own, surely? What do you do at the zoo or othe rpublic places where people are taking photos?

Mishtake-the school will have all the information or guidance that they need to make the decision on whether the child should be photographed. A life story book is constructed for some children and the photos to go in these are SS directed.

Very interesting about how the schools handle these situations.
But as Potter says - what happens in large public envrionments like zoos or parks? What happens when the children are of an age to go on school trips etc and their friends start taking pictures of them? My youngest is 5 and has photos he's taken of his friends.
Do the children develop an awareness of not allowing themselves to be photographed? Do they take responsibility for guarding their own image as they get older?

Why should the OP have to ask other people to do what they have already signed up to? In this way the OP runs a greater risk of making a fuss and drawing attention to himself. Far better to have the centre reinforce their own rules.

Making the approach himself would mean that the OP ran the risk of some arsey git deliberately taking photographs. 'who does he think he is? Oooh do you think they are famous?' Cue arsey git taking a stack of snaps to try to identify the 'famous' child.

Curly, I never said you should tell a stranger that your child is adopted!

I said you could politely ask them to make sure your child wasn't in the picture. Or just say nicely that you would prefer it if they didn't have your child in any of the pictures. There would be nothing at all wrong with doing that.

It's a shame that he will have to be singled out, at least as long as we think he can't be recognised, because we will do anything to keep him safe. Yes, it IS a shame but that is the deck we've been dealt so we play it the best way we can

In that case, if it were me I'd keep any reference to him off the internet (so delete this stuff and profile details on MN, get off facebook), and move town. The risk from a snapshot in a soft play area is minor comapred to those two.