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.

justs take the photo

have not RTT

just skimmed it and the drama in both senses is over it seems.

"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."

Countessmarkyabitch - you are right, there is no risk to a vulnerable child from a photo of Spero's child, on her own on stage.

BUT IF SPERO CAN TAKE PHOTOS, SO CAN EVERYONE ELSE THERE - AND OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT NOT BE AS CAREFUL AS SPERO ABOUT NOT ACCIDENTALLY PHOTOGRAPHING ANOTHER CHILD AND PUTTING THAT PICTURE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

BUT IF SPERO CAN TAKE PHOTOS, SO CAN EVERYONE ELSE THERE - AND OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT NOT BE AS CAREFUL AS SPERO ABOUT NOT ACCIDENTALLY PHOTOGRAPHING ANOTHER CHILD AND PUTTING THAT PICTURE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

here here

imagine the bunfight

Show this thread to your senior partner and ask for advice.

there would an an actual real life bunfight,
as opposed to an imaginary internet forum bunfight

you should have watched the whole show at least Spero, instead of spending the whole time googling and asking mumsnet

Ok, lets say for a moment that its reasonable to stop anyone doing an everyday thing for the very tiny actual chance of harm (we can accept that the risk is real while acknowledging the very very remote chance) remember that there has to be an at risk child, they have to have wandered into the photo, the photo has to have been uploaded on social media, that social media has to be unsecured, that photo happens to have been shared by the right people who happen to know the person who the child is at risk from, that person has to happen to see it, and be able to use any info...thats an awful lot of unlikely occurrances so statistically a tiny tiny chance.

Ok lets say that that tiny tiny chance is enough to stop anyone taking pictures at this show, right? Well what if I take a picture of my child at the park after school? This same theoretical child might wander into the shot in school uniform. The same could happen at the shops. The same could happen anywhere. So you'd better not take any pictures anywhere. There are all kinds of ways that that child could be identified. OF course its actually far far more likely that someone could just see the child and pass on the information to the violent party, but lets not let actual risk rather than percieved risk get in the way of the hysteria.

Can you not see the logic? IT's not as simple as "don't take a pic because the risk is too high" because either the risk is real and you have to extend the logic to lots of other situations OR the risk is insignificant compared to other risks.

There is not one single photo of me in any of the concerts I was in, either at school or university. This has not blighted my life.

What I do remember, with a slight pang, is that my mum never made the effort to see me in any of my university concerts - where I was the soloist in some pretty big concerts.

I get the general child protection issue with photographs, honestly I do. And I can even see that the organisers may want a blanket ban just to cover their arses (although not why they invent a bogus piece of legislation rather than be upfront about it). But I can't see why so many posters are arguing with a straight face that it is REALLY VITALLY IMPORTANT to ban photography of individual children alone on a stage, or anywhere in the same bulding as the stage, when twenty metres away the same parent can photograph the same child in a similarly identifiable location with anyone who happens to be walking past in the background

Because once they leave the venue, I'm no longer in loco parentis.

I can control who and where the pictures are taken inside the venue. Because that's my job. I cannot control what happens outside - the parents accept that

Oh yes, I appreciate that. I said I could see why the organisers might want a blanket ban. What I can't understand (and said so explicitly in the bit of my post that you snipped out) is the posters here who told Spero in all seriousness that if she took a photo at the event she would be putting a child's life in danger and that was why she shouldn't do it.

If taking a picture of her own child 30cm inside the door of the Guildhall is putting a child's life in danger, then taking a picture of her own child 30cm outside the door of the Guildhall is putting a child's life in danger and would be just as morally reprehensible -- indeed, taking a picture of her own child anywhere under any circumstances (except possibly in her own home with all the curtains drawn) would be putting a child's life in danger and hence morally reprehensible.

There are reasons good reasons, indeed why there's a ban 30cm inside the door and not 30cm outside the door, but "it's really really vitally important from a child protection point of view not to take any pictures inside but there are no child protection implications at all if you take a picture outside" isn't one of them.

"There's no actual harm done by an individual parent taking a picture of their own child with no other children appearing in frame, but the organisers can't police the event to make sure that those are the only pictures taken so they need to have a blanket ban on photography" - perfectly reasonable. "OMG WHY ARE YOU PUTTING A PHOTOGRAPH AHEAD OF A CHILD'S LIFE?!?" (I'm exaggerating slightly for effect and because I don't want to pick on any one individual's posts) - not reasonable.

What is important from a child protection point of view, for parents:

• if you've been told not to photograph an event at all, don't. Your photograph probably wouldn't cause an issue, but the more photographs that get taken the greater the chance that one of them will.
• if you have photographs of your child featuring other recognisable children (wherever they may have been taken), don't share them without checking with those children's parents first. If you don't know the children or their parents, just don't share them.

And suggestions for schools:

• if you are organising a performance where you can't allow photographs for child protection reasons, set up an opportunity for parents to photograph their own child in isolation afterwards (somewhere where other children can't wander into shot) and let them know you'll be doing that. That way it's less likely that any photographs will be taken sneakily during the performance.
• if you tell parents that they can't photograph an event for child protection reasons, don't then release a DVD of the whole thing featuring every participating child, or whole-cast photographs, because if you do then the parents won't take "child protection" warnings seriously next time.

I think the OP should count herself lucky she's the kind of family lawyer who can spend on hour on Mumsnet and two hours at her child's show on a Friday afternoon

Well said Yves.

Why do you need to post suggestions for schools, yves?

This wasn't a school event

The concert organisers have a responsibility for the safety of the children at their event - and regardless of whether or not the child might face similar risks in the outside world, they still have to demonstrate that they have performed a proper risk-assessment, and have taken the measures they think are necessary to ensure the safety of the children taking part.

A child could get knocked over by a car, crossing the road on their way home from school - does that mean that the school shouldn't take care to ensure the children's safety when crossing the road during a school trip?

Sorry - my last post was in answer to countessmarkyabitch.

Name change specially for this.

A beach or national park are tourist places. You could live anywhere in the country and visit there on holiday. Playgrounds tend to be quite similar so unlikely to be easily recognisable.

A dance show tends to be for a local area. This then puts the child as resident in that area.

My adopted children aren't at a massive risk from birth family, but birth family do live nearby and my children are very recognisable. We are very careful regarding photos. My children miss out on being in school newsletters because of this, and photos of events in the local paper. There have been a few times my children have been unable to participate in something because we knew press would be there and it would be too identifiable. There are areas near to us we never go to with the children.

What's the chances of a birth family seeing the photos you may ask? Well 3 years into placement a mum at the school came up to me and said "I think I've been talking with your children's birth aunt and uncle". It turned out her Dad lived next door to them. Luckily she works with children and knew to keep schtum, but for us it was a close call.

Every time my children go to any kind of external or semi-public event to do with school or a club they are in we have to consider publicity. We weigh up risk versus benefit to them. We do this in light of the photo restrictions or otherwise of the place. Within school we accept photos to be taken by parents provided they don't go on social media. If they didn't abide by that then we would kick up a fuss and ask for photos to be stopped.

It sucks enough being adopted. Then it sucks having to be careful about photos. It's a pain for us and our children. We don't do it for fun. But no way am I restricting their right to enjoy normal childhood events just to allow you (and therefore any random adult who may not be careful with internet safety) to take a photo. Remember, we don't get to take the photos either, even though we would like them too. And one of my children only has 2 tiny photos for the whole of their first 6 years of life, you've probably got loads.

Sounds like life is difficult enough for you already anonymous, without people saying the rules are ridiculous and probably only affect a small number of children.

Maybe they'll read your post and realise why they're wrong about this necessary small inconvenience to their lives.

The concert organisers have a responsibility for the safety of the children at their event - and regardless of whether or not the child might face similar risks in the outside world, they still have to demonstrate that they have performed a proper risk-assessment, and have taken the measures they think are necessary to ensure the safety of the children taking part

So its just box ticking and ass covering then?

Anonymous, I get what you are saying, and I feel for you. But some of what you say doesn;t make sense in context. You say that someone told you they had a connection to your children...but it had nothing to do with photos or social media? I don't see how that shows the risk of photos.
And you say you don't get to take pictures...but why not? If you put them in an album instead of putting them on Instagram, how is taking photos any problem at all?

Everyone is obsessing about the risks from social media. Taking a photo doesnt mean it goes on social media.

It's not being unsympathetic to state that the PERCEIVED RISK is not the same thing as ACTUAL RISK.

anonymous / suburban
Surely the answer to that is to have adopted the children where there were not close family
rather than put up daft rules that will be broken for everybody else

TBH
If people are really looking for a child, using face recognition software and trawling every non secure picture on FB or instagram or twitter
then no ban in the world will stop them finding that child

so its still a daft system

I have significant issues with the fact that a FB friend takes pictures of all the events their child goes to and tags all of the parents on public settings
a lot of the tags vanish a few days later
but in that time ...
and these events are all in public spaces so there are no rules
with that info, the rest becomes a doddle

Fgs they haven't made up a law! You will obviously realise that.

They have stated no photographs and cited the Act as a reason.

Now, they have a duty to protect children. That's why they might be doing it. Something along those lines. But you should know that. Protecting the children from what? Just ask!

If you want a picture take one outside afterwards. It isn't hard.

I also have a child who should not be photographed or identified online. I take this seriously as the security threat is real.

But I also think that when these things get over-zealous we often lose out on understanding and mindfulness of how risk should be managed. My kids' school invites parents up at the end to take photos of their child (which would have met Spero's needs). It is of course entirely possible that one of those parents will catch my child in a snap - inadvertently or otherwise. But for me that falls into the same layer of risk that she will get photographed anywhere, or spotted in the street, or indeed will venture onto social media as she grows older. I can't assume blanket rules will keep her safe; I have to keep actively on top of it, and help her to understand basic rules about keeping herself safe too.

If you want a picture take one outside afterwards. It isn't hard.>>>

Is also doesn't make any difference. Inside, outside, its all the same. Same level of risk, its just that one way you're doing as you're told and one way you aren't.

Devora
and help her to understand basic rules about keeping herself safe too.
Absolutely.
If your child is at risk, once she hits secondary age, roaming town on a Saturday, only her self awareness will protect her
not some stupid ban on all kids at primary school

the photo stuff is a bit like the nuts in school lunches bilge
it seems to vanish when the kids hit age 11

and yet as we know from the news, that is the age when the risk increases
if the kids have not been taught how to look out for themselves

Interesting thread.

One post leaps out at me

I am shocked that if indeed you are a solicitor you seem to have so little awareness of not only the possible issues but also don't already have an in depth knowledge of the children and family act and the protection of children act*

As I have pointed out there is NO SUCH ACT as the Protection of Children Act.

As far as I know neither the Children Act 1989 or the Children and Families Act 2014 say anything about photography.

I find it disturbing that people think this just doesn't matter - what's in a name eh? But if you don't know what the law is, then how can you know if you are breaking it? How can you apply it? How can you enforce it?

I am not sobbing over my green crayon because I didn't get a picture of my little darling on stage. I am just fuming that I was prevented for a made up reason, which carries serious implications about the stupidity and ignorance of those enforcing 'child protection' policies.

I took at picture of her outside the United Reform Church. I have put it on Facebook. The elbow of another child may be visible in the shot. I'll let you know the death toll that follows.

the last event I went to with my daughter was a Biathlon involving schools from all over the country. There must have been thousands of children there at a clearly identified school. I was allowed to take photographs after signing a form explaining my daughter was a competitor and they gave me a badge with PHOTO written on it. I took four pictures and put them on Facebook. There were probably 20 or so other unidentified children milling about in the background. Again, no one died. A much more sensible policy.

Surely the answer to that is to have adopted the children where there were not close family

How does one opt to do that? They do check to see whether any known family are living in your area, but they cannot possibly check every single friend or acquaintance of the birth family.

Also, most adoptions do happen within county. So, for example, if you live in Devon & wish to adopt, you will be matched with a child from your own local authority - albeit from a different town or city.

I do have another example I could give you of randomly chatting to my nephew's birth family on holiday, 200 miles away, before realising who they were - but to give details would completely out me to anyone who knows me well!