That someone is using a made up law to stop me taking a photo of my child

[Spero]

My daughter is in her first ever drama festival. She is very proud and nervous. I want to take a photo of her. I am told I cannot due to the 'Child protection Act'. I am a family lawyer. I have never heard of this Act. Nor has Google.

So the objection is not that I may disrupt proceedings with annoying camera but that the mere act of taking an photo of my own child is somehow a child protection issue.

I am angry - not so much that I can't take a photo of my precious first born, but for what this reveals about the sloppy muddleheaded approach we seem to have about what 'child protection' really means.

AIBU to be so cross? Am contemplating stern letter of complaint. Making up legislation really isn't on.

I I don't think the issue is lack of compassion and I do think insulting people is a very ineffective way or persuading them about your point.

I think the problem is lack of understanding and this thread has been very helpful for me in really thinking this problem through. I think the solutions are

Proper, clear policies which people can understand. Not flannel about poorly understood laws which will breed resentment and flouting of such 'policies'
Better education about social media and how to use it
An end to placing adopted children within bus ride of birth family
Better education and training of social workers and better management so they don't continaully mess up the evidential foundation of care proceedings and thus cause enormous resentment and lack of understanding for birth parents.

But as we both know people don't read full thread so things have to be repeated.

If it cheers you up, karma is punishing me

Can I just ask (and I am sorry I have to but I genuinely don't know) what the issue is with adopted children being photographed and potentially shared on social media sites?
I understand the problem when child protection issues are involved, but my understanding was that an adopted child 'belongs' to their family just like a birth child would??

Jamming, I am sorry to read that your DCs have been through so much. You are clearly a lioness in protecting them and looking out for them and frustrated by lack of understanding of the issues you face. I apologise for being one of those who don't 'get it'.

In my eyes there are 2 connected but separate issues though:

1. the protection of vulnerable children which makes it totally appropriate in some circumstances to not allow all and sundry taking photographs of their children whilst other children are also in the frame. I totally get that.
2. the making up of non-existent laws. Which in my eyes is hugely dangerous and utterly not acceptable. I think if people with a good knowledge of the law don't challenge this kind of sloppy policing of what is and is not 'allowed' then we'd all be in huge trouble.

I am one of those people who from time to time gets involved in child protection proceedings. I am not a lawyer. I would not have recognised the 'Child Protection Act' as made up - I am really rather worried about that because as Spero has said repeatedly, it implies that there are (likely) other bits of legislation that I don't know or don't understand and if I got things wrong I would not even know I got them wrong IYKWIM.
And, I in a wider context, I would rather live in a country were laws were passed by parliament rather than made up by somebody who finds the 'Chocolate for Breakfast Act 2015' a convenient way to justify whatever they are doing.

James Marsters has cancelled his attendance at Cardiff Comic Con. There ought to be a law, and I will be inventing one shortly.

I met James Marsters when he was in Angel, OP. We spent about 30 minutes in a hotel room, just me, him, his publicist, a photographer and two 20th Century Fox press officers. But I blanked them out.

I'm saying that because you're not the only one who can be smug about her job

Thank you, Jamming.

Why would it be a problem if your (or any other adopted child's) birth family saw them online? Is it a concern for them them having the option to seek them out - that would be awful. But do people actually DO that?!

Gawd, I am so naive.

FB is of the devil's anyway

Yes they do seek them out, a member of my family is currently dealing with that. Teenage adopted daughter found via Facebook, though the clue to her new identity was due not to a photo but to a social services 'clerical error' which gave birth family the new name. Social services have reacted swiftly (not surprisingly) and even have a dedicated social worker for dealing with issues around Facebook and looked after children.

The child concerned was not allowed a Facebook profile until it became obvious that not having one was a major disadvantage to their teenage social life. I really do understand the issues around identification of LAC through photographs, particularly when the children are still easily identifiable, but the way to tackle it is not to do what was done in this case, to make up a law and impose a rule that does not make sense (ie ban taking a photo of ones own child alone on a stage). What that does is piss people off so they break the rule.

The example up thread of an event banning parents taking photos on the grounds of child protection, then selling photos of the event is interesting. It may have been that a LAC was in the cast and only photos without them in it were released - but what happens is that it's perceived to be about making money. If the organisers had given the images away, maybe asking for a donation, then parents might have been less angry.

If the aim of any ban on photography is genuinely child protection (not profit) then organisations need to work on getting buy in from the people concerned.

Limited, pah! I too have a private audience with James.

That action figure is so bad. His enormous crab-like arms are in complete disproportion to his chest.

That said, no one could identify you from that photo.

Oh the git! That Marsters bloke better not cancel for Newcastle. I promised my sil his autograph!

Fake it. She'll never know.

I have quite a flexible moral code though.

@ limited

Thanks again for explaining.

My only 'direct' experience of adoption is my cousin who was adopted as a baby and is now in his late 40s so he grew up well before social media were an issue. Nobody ever came looking for him and he opted not to make contact with his birth mother when he was a teenager/young adult. I don't think he's ever sought them out since. Interestingly, he has adopted and birth children himself .

Can I make the assumption that my DCs' small suburban primary school does not have any children considered vulnerable seeing that they have never put any restrictions on photos/videos being taken at school events? And yes, there's a form we sign at the beginning of every school year allowing photography.

Just who exactly IS James Marsters?

The ignorance on this thread is shocking, simply shocking.

My iPad won't let me link but Google James Marsters shirtless and educate yourself.

Just who exactly IS James Marsters?

Fuck off PacificDogwood. On another site this morning I've had to face the fact that Liam Neeson is old enough to be an adult's granddad.

Jamming, what a horrible judgement to have to make