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.

Er, yes. Most family lawyers know the Children Act 1989. It is one of only three Acts that I regularly refer to and have done for 15 years.

Either I am incompetent beyond belief or there really is NOTHING ABOUT PHOTOS in that Act.

But as ever I am gracious when I am proved wrong, so go on, prove it.

So have they offered the DVD for sale yet???

Luckily, we don't have any if that made up legal nonsense over here. Taking pictures of your kids is pretty much expected. It's gas.

Yes, it was the 'made up law' bit that really pushed my buttons. And I don't accept that is an 'only' kind of concern. Its not trivial. Its laminated at Cardiff bloody ice rink as well. Goodness only knows how this has taken hold and how many people are strutting about thinking they know the law.

Its dangerous. It points to a deep, deep lack of understanding about basic principles and explains a lot about the woeful state of child protection in this country.

Does the Children Act say anything about the responsibility of adults organising events for children, to ensure the safety of those children, maybe? Because it is surely possible that there is a provision within the act that could result in a photography ban, even though photography is not specifically mentioned.

I accept 'only' was the wrong word to use - maybe 'solely' would have been better, Spero.

Oh, Spero, YANBU. At all.

It is awful how perfectly necessary safe-guarding processes get diluted by incompetent job's worths to totally unnecessary 'broad brush' policies.

And yes, no 'Act' involved.

Don't get me started on Elf'n'Safety when it goes ott… again, perfectly good principles ruined by lack of engagement of brain or common sense.

Fwiw, my DCs' schools allow photography at school events.

SDTG but such an interpretation (to extrapolate a ban on photography where none exists) would be the duty of the courts. Anything else would be undemocratic.

However I am unaware of any rule of statutory interpretation they could apply to come up with a ban on photography, certainly applying the literal rule of statutory interpretation - legislation is interpreted according to its plain and simple meaning, as intended by the legislature.

Can I just hopefully conclude this "debate" by saying that Spero is in fact a highly competent family law barrister, but chooses just to say that she is a "family lawyer" which I think should demonstrate that she did not start this thread, as has been alleged "gloating about being a solicitor" - how ridiculous.

And YES her compassion for the vulnerable does indeed run deep. I am not a friend, jumping to her defence, but have "met" her on MN many times, and she has as you would expect from a family law barrister a thorough and complete understanding of all legislation relating to child protection issues and child care law in general. She will challenge people dishing out inaccurate information and often does so with a mixture of wit and humour. And NO she doesn't suffer fools gladly.

I can understand why she got pissed off at the "Child Protection Act" line from the organisers and it's this I reckon that's raised her ire, rather than being prevented from taking a photograph of her daughter. It would be like telling a bricklayer that you don't use cement when building a wall!

I rest my case!

I am sure you are right, TheChandler - I was merely suggesting that this might be why people are citing Acts of Parliament to back up their bans - I wasn't suggesting that they were legally in the right to do so.

OK, to be absolutely clear - I am not aware of ANY PRIMARY LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER that prohibits a parent taking pictures of their own children.

There may well be something buried in some guidance or regulation that mentions it. I don't know what that is. If exists, I should know and I accept that would be a serious failing on my part as both a lawyer and a parent.

But isn't it interesting that two hundred messages later, not one person can identify this for me.

Of course schools and festivals can have whatever policies they want, which are reasonable and within the law.

What I find shocking and enraging is that made up law is being quoted at me. This suggests very strongly that the person doing the quoting has absolutely no idea what they are talking about and that is a very dangerous position to be in if you are responsible for devising and implementing child protection policies.

You are NBU Spero.

There is no law stating that you can't take photographs in public. This includes taking photos that include other people's children or taking photos of children directly. An offence will, however, have been committed if the photographs taken are indecent.

Yes, good point. I accept I am prohibited from taking and distributing indecent photos of my own child.

I can't think of any other possible prohibition.

i agree that the error of 'the act' is annoying - and probably more so if you work in or are interested in the law.

BUT its situations like this which keep my children safe.

i know its annoying to say no photos of your own child on their own on stage - but the problem is the slippery slope.
you take a piccie of your own child - maybe your partner or ex takes a piccie too - so 2 camera's used.
maybe next door neighbour things oh X looks adorable i'll take a piccie, and best friends mum thinks the same - before you know it 4 cameras are pointing at the stage.....
next child comes on and the piccies continue - never mind that you barely know the child, everyone else is taking a pic afterall.
i'll print if off for the drama teacher she'll love that.
oh while i'm there i'll put it on facebook - the LO is adorable so i'll share it, etc etc.

my adopted children's location is kept secret for a reason. a good reason. its part of the reason school parents cannot take group pictures of the class assembly, cannot put photos of any school event etc on facebook or similar.
its the reason that if we were on the beach and you were trying to snap your child and we were in the background we would quickly move.

we have had situations where we have asked people to direct the camera away from our children and received a mouthful of abuse about their right to take a piccie of their child - it won't hurt etc etc.

i know its a pain - i really do. i'd love to snap away at my gorgeous kids - like anonadopter they have very few infant pics - but how can i be sure its safe when 4 cameras are going off and my child is on stage?

Bloody Child Protection Act AGAIN! What was the date of that article?

You now have me nodding approvingly to something in the Telegraph which believe me is not something I thought would happen today...

So,
adopted children with dodgy birth families are at risk - and will probably NOT be in semi public events

why are all the rest of the children being pseudo protected ?

AND
please explain to me why the OTT protection runs through primary but drops away at secondary - when the news clearly shows the risk increases

FFS
when Spero's DD is 13, she'll be snapchatting pictures left right and centre anyway

noonoos78 (and anonymous earlier)

I really am not ignorant about the particular difficulties faced by adoptive children. I have advised on damages claims under Human Rights Act when SW have revealed identities of adoptive parents. I get that it is s real and very significant problem if adopted children are identified.

But it doesn't make adopted children any safer, or any child come to that, if people are allowed to propagate this kind of ignorance about what is or is not a law. This simply breeds contempt for the laws that do exist and makes things less safe for every child.

For all the pearl-wringers, I would just like to point out that a stage is one of the most unidentifiable locations possible: it is likely to be either a simple black or white box, or got up to resemble 'a wood outside Athens' or something.

I understand that some people may have very specific concerns about their adopted children, but most of what was going on here was generalised scare-mongering.

In shows that my children have been in, we've either been asked not to take any photographs at all during the performance, as it is distracting (fair enough) or told that we can take whatever photographs we want, providing we don't share them on social media (also fair enough). I'm rather disappointed that the organisers didn't have the imagination to invent a whole new Act.

I had a look at the link that FabUlouse pointed to and, to be honest, it's bollocks from beginning to end. Another prohibition of photography (about a third of the way down the page) was on copyright grounds. Now, I'm no IP lawyer but I really am hard put to imagine how flash photography could be said to infringe copyright (if that is indeed the fear).

Thanks for some interesting and helpful replies. It has certainly helped me clarify in my own mind why I was so angry.

I will write to the organisers and say that while of course I respect their policies re photographs and can understand why they are necessary, I would be grateful if they could inform me as to the legal basis for this prohibition, as I was worried that reference was made to non-existent legislation.

I will let you know what response, if any, I get.

Talkin
please explain to me why the OTT protection runs through primary but drops away at secondary - when the news clearly shows the risk increases

First, there are lots more events at primary where parents are invited and all children involved.
Second, older children can be less recognisable from when the birth family last saw them (not in our case due to incredibly strong resemblance to parent).
Third the protection is still there. My teen can still not be on school website or local paper. Luckily my teen isn't outstanding in drama or anything as then we would have a big decision to make regarding publicity photos for school shows.
Fourth any disruption occurring now due to birth family finding our location will be easier to handle than a few years back as the children are older, more mature, more sensible. In a few years there may well be direct contact anyway when our location would become known. But we would like this to be our decision, not forced on us due to being 'found'.
when Spero's DD is 13, she'll be snapchatting pictures left right and centre anyway
My teen is on facebook but under a nickname, different d.o.b. and no photos. My teen's friends respect this. And actually police others, reporting if a photo is posted.

There are more children around than you may think who are adopted or fostered. At least 1 in 50 in my teen's year group at secondary. Plus then you have people who have fled abusive partners.

Spero - YANBU for complaining that the reason given is incorrect. And for what it's worth I think they should probably have given an opportunity for photos on stage at the end. If people didn't want that then they could not put their children there for the photo call, that's how it worked at our primary.

The analogy that springs to mind for me is "security theatre": the way that farting around with confiscating bottles of Evian & removing shoes at airports actually makes us all less safe overall.

My teen is on facebook but under a nickname, different d.o.b. and no photos. My teen's friends respect this. And actually police others, reporting if a photo is posted.
Yeah righ.
And her snapchat?
and her instagram?
and her twitter?
and her flickr?
and if you think you know about all her accounts, you are deluded

The numbers of kids who are fostered and adopted does not equal the numbers who cannot be photographed

FWIW the kids who were tightly controlled in DCs primary are now utterly un restricted due to changes in the court orders

Talkin my teen is actually quite concerned about privacy and not having disruption from birth family over the next couple of years. My teen does not have the accounts you list, I am not deluded. I know this because I know my teen, my teen is concerned for own and younger sibling's privacy, and we also have strong parental controls which teen has not asked us to remove. Not all teens want to live their lives out through public social media, my teen and close friends don't.

But I fear we have wandered off the topic of the thread somewhat now.

anonymous
not really
speros DD is young, but in any music / dance events will be phone addicted teens
you can say what you like to parents in the auditorium and then have hundreds of daft pics posted by the older kids from the dressing rooms

and the chaperone kids will NOT have been told
so its all insane

In our school of around 850 students, there are three for whom no external images are permitted, and for one of the three no internal images either. So just three children whose photo may not go in the paper, or be used in advertising. And just one whose photo may not be put on the wall inside school.