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.

If there is a POLICY as a pp said then it is reasonable to respect that, but there is no LAW against taking a photo of your dc

And don't stick photos of children who are not yours on Facebook without parents' permission - that's just courtesy.

1. This is ONE child, alone on stage, and ,presumably, the OP knows if her OWN child is subject to issues around protection.

1. If there are good enough reasons to ban people, then they should say so, not make stuff up.

Am I allowed a little snigger that someone asked this....

Op is a family lawyer, Kewcumber; what's the joke?

I agree its absolutely silly. If you daughter is on stage by herself you should be allowed to. I was allowed to take pictures of dd Brownie promise, but not to put them on social media as there were other children there. Same when dd was at Infant school too.

YANBU

It doesnt put a child's life in danger. is all bollocks. we all go to see our kids in school shows and want to take photos of them as they are happy memories we want to capture. OP go ahead and take a photo of your daughter. am sure you wont get arrested for it!

So this is what seems to have happened here:

OP enters her child for a festival (not in school).

She presumably accepts the terms and conditions of entry, which state clearly the rules around photos and videos during the event.

She asks one of the organisers if she can be exempted from the rules she signed up to.

The person she speaks to gets one word wrong in her explanation.

The OP comes on here to gloat about being a lawyer and how puzzled she is that she can't find the "Act" that has been referred to.

OP goes to the event and doesn't take a photo.

If Spero is allowed to take photos, everyone must be allowed to take photos, and they may not be as careful as Spero about not taking photos of other children.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Take photo of event as it happens for your own memories but donâ??t put photos on Facebook or if really feel you need to post photos of your child on fb, crop out other children. It's very simple.

Op, the school needs to be clear. Threatening people with non-existant laws just alienates parents and children.

You have no right to know the background of other children who may end up, unintentionally in the picture.

Could somebody PLEASE explain to me what the risk is of an untagged child appearing in the background of a picture on FB.

If you go to any public event with the press there you may end up being seen in the crowd on TV

where is the risk?

Identifiable is one thing, but randomly unidentified in the background of somebody else's picture
WHAT is the risk of ?

I would imagine Talkin that the danger is that photo being shared on FB etc, & the child being recognised by someone who already knows them.

For example, if either of my DNieces or DNephew's photo appeared on FB, there is a possibility that either birth father may see the photo (via having mutual friends of friends etc.), recognise the child & locate their whereabouts via the name of the school or group which would most likely be identified either on the photo or in the comments beneath. All three were placed for adoption as small children & both birth fathers opposed the adoptions & pose a risk to the children.

Because the photo would identify the background child as having been at Such-n-such an event on a particular date. Not at all impossible that it might be spotted on social media by a family member or acquaintance of whoever shouldn't know where they are.

That could be a fairly useful piece of information to someone trying to track that child - in this context it pegs them as a member of a drama club (possibly one specific club, possibly a few if it's a larger event) located in this particular town.

I'm actually speechless at this post. And I hope to fuck you are not at my school. This narrow mindedness of "I've sat through a performance..." You take one photo and share it on FB. It gets commented on by a friend which them flags it on their page and so gets spread.>>>>

I'm speechless that you can't tell us how a pic of OPS OWN CHILD WITH NOONE IN THE BACKGROUND HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE, WHETHER SHE PUTS IN ON FB OR PLASTERS IT ON EVERY BILLBOARD IN TOWN.

Yes, I am shouting. And please can someone tell me how a child in the background of a pic at a dance show is any different to being in the background of a pic at a playground, beach, national park, or anywhere else? Or do you just want to keep shreiking about child protection with no actual details?

Then that is the same risk in many many situations. Therefore if this ban is sensible then so is banning photos pretty much everywhere.

Plus you're also telling op she's too stupid to manage to get just a picture of her own child.

Not read whole thread but assuming someone is trying to refer to the Children Act.

Countess - it's identifiable. It tell a violent birth parent whose a high risk of abducting a child which school they attend.

Aside from any legal status, I don't want pictures of my children on social media.

So enjoy watching the show.

Memorise what it looked like

Take a photo of her at home

I fail to see what the fuss is about

Ia gree with SDTG, and Rhonda

can someone tell me how a child in the background of a pic at a dance show is any different to being in the background of a pic at a playground, beach, national park, or anywhere else?

To be fair, I have two siblings and two separate friends with adopted DCs - none of them ever share photos of any of their DCs anywhere & none are permitted to be included in official school or club group photos.

I still don't understand the problem with OP taking a photo of her own child though..........