Nativity and child protection issue

[DrMum83]

AIBU?

An acquaintance on Facebook (girl I went to primary school with) has posted a video of her child in the school nativity play. Her mother (the GM) has then shared it on her Facebook. The acquaintance commented that 'I know some people are against videos of children but it's largely focused on DS and its a sad world we live in if I can't do that'.

One of her friends commented that there are child protection issues surrounding this and that at her daughter's school, they are specifically requested to not video the play or post on social media photos of other kids. My acquaintance retorted with 'the headmaster announced at the beginning of the play that video taking is allowed as long as no parents present object'

This rang alarm bells for me.

A) as part of my role at work, I am involved with safeguarding children. Children can be found on fb and hunted down by parents when in care and this can be disastrous.
B) 'no parents present object' what about the parents not present? And what about those sharing the video forward (as in this case)?

I have managed to find the name of school and have typed a letter to headmaster. He may think I'm an interfering busybody but would I be unreasonable to send it?!

Thoughts?

(Incidentally, does anyone other than close family ever look at these things?)

Yes, they do. I can only speak as an adoptive parent and foster carer. But searching facebook for photographs and filming of school plays etc are part of the "standard" tactic used by families to find what school their children are at. And when some other parents have broken the rules and posted videos online of a school play etc, is the reason some foster children I have known have had to have a plain clothes police escort to and from school each day.

My friend adopted 3 lovely siblings from a horrible home life several years ago. They suspect the parent actively looks for the children (and their christian names are rather unique and can't be changed).All it takes is one nativity video and a comment underneath to the effect of 'look how X has grown!' and they have a problem. I used to grumble and think it was a bit of an overreaction, now, not so much.

Ditto. Have been through this with my adoptive children, now adults. But now with foster children it is much worse, as of course there are so many opportunities and ways to film and post footage online. Currently foster children can miss out on so much, by other parents going against the requests not to film/take photos. I can't say much more but a parent's unthinking attitude, can, in some cases, be life threatening for a foster child.

'the headmaster announced at the beginning of the play that video taking is allowed as long as no parents present object'

If I stood up in a school hall and said "yes, I object, due to my foster children being at risk," I would be sacked as a foster carer, when, as you can imagine confidentiality is vital. The only alternative would be to withdraw the children immediately from the play, thus drawing more attention to them.

It is sad there seem to be so many instances of children in danger of being kidnapped or stalked by one side of their families...I wonder what the percentage is? I have a few crazy inlaws that I wouldn't put anything past, but I thought these children who were in danger were very few? Apparently not since many of you know people whose children are at risk. At my children's school, you can tell them specifically the names of people who are not to be trusted with your children, and of course the short list of the only people who are authorized to pick up your children.

I am careful to not put other people's children on my social media unless I know the other parents don't mind, especially since my friends list is only people I know and trust and my pictures and videos are not public. I have posted videos myself that have other children along with mine in them but no closeups. However now I am rethinking that, perhaps it is best not to put any of that up. I guess a general letter to the school is a good idea but not naming the acquaintance because that would look like someone just doesn't like her and wants to be vindictive and it sounds like you just want the school to take measures to keep the children safe. Let us know how the school responds, good luck.

gecko - unless someone who didn't upload a video reported him saying that I would take it with a pinch of salt. Seems just as likely to me that he told them not to upload and she's lying.

If kids are in danger then the person who is a danger to them should be dealt with / locked up. Innocent people shouldn't be penalised for doing something perfectly normal and innocent such as taking pictures of their child in a nativity play and sharing them. It's a disproportionate response and breeds hysteria.

A recent foster child is at enormous risk, enormous. It's an international situation and very complex. Though of course other parents in the school would never know. However, you are innocent until proven guilty in the UK, so how could those "people" putting them at such risk be dealt with/locked up BEFORE they have committed the crime against their child in care. Actually in this case the "people" putting them at risk WERE taken into custody, but had to be released as there was no crime yet committed. They could only be "locked up" after the crime, and it is that crime, we and the authorities are trying to protect them from.

Sorry if that makes little sense.

If this is not a risk and is so unrealistic then why do foster carers and adopters get trained/talked to about social media and its risks? Why did a friend of mine have a link with a child which fell through due to Facebook connections between her and members of the birth family? This is a reality for some of us and it is really quite irritating to be told we are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I also do not understand this suggestion that one parent's right to plaster their children all over social media trumps the rights of those of us who want the whereabouts of our children protected for safety reasons. Or the rights of those children to take place in school plays. They should be excluded and stigmatised because grown adults are stamping their feet because they cannot show off about their precious snowflake on Facebook? Sorry, building up a head of steam here...!

Really, because threats, harrassment, emotional abuse etc are all crimes. If someone has committed a criminal act and is dangerous then they need to be locked up.

Sadly in my world the people my foster children are at risk from cannot be convicted of their abduction/murder until after it has happened.

I also do not understand this suggestion that one parent's right to plaster their children all over social media trumps the rights of those of us who want the whereabouts of our children protected for safety reasons

Totally agree.

Why is it so important that people plaster their kids all over Facebook?

When did Facebook posting become a right?

My children lost their friends, family, dad, school, all their photos, toys, clothes and everything that ever meant anything to them. Now you want to take away their right to be in a school play with their friends so other people can gain a few likes on FB? Sharing things on FB is more important than a childs life? Is that really your stance? Such a breathtakingly selfish attitude.

Perfectly put, Elsa. I am listening to my foster children play as I read your words, and it bought tears to my eyes. Thank you for understanding, thank you. And believe me, I understand you too.

Also, it is not that there are absolutely thousands of child murderers out there, child safeguarding is about protecting a child's privacy for various reasons. I don't think my son's birth family would physically harm him or abduct him but adopted children can be hugely vulnerable and need support around contact which needs to go at their own pace. I don't want random birth family members contacting him before he is ready. He has a right to that much.

we can't go making rules that impact everyone because of some unspecified future event that may happen, in the absence of any evidence that such an event is even a possibility. It would be a very strange precedent to set.

Ifgranny, most adopted children have already had a judge rule that their birth parent/s cannot look after them, based on evidence of past harm or evidence that there is a high risk of future harm. Protecting the children from further contact with those parents is to protect from direct harm or the indirect damage of reawakened trauma. You can't keep birth parents (or anyone) locked up because they might do something, and you can't just shrug and say, "Well, if they harm the child again they'll be arrested again". Surely you can see why preventive action is needed here?

There are plenty of other areas where we enforce privacy and confidentiality to protect people - in healthcare, for example. If someone walked down a hospital ward videoing random patients in beds, they'd probably get asked to leave. I can't see why asking people to protect privacy in this specific instance is setting a precedent.

I find this thread so so sad.

My kids are immensely lucky. They have two parents who would walk through fire for them. They have extended family who love to hear what they get up to and who they spend time with (some of whom, yes, live far away and have to content themselves with photos). They have a network of friends built up over the years.

To think that, from that position of immense privilege, I would look at a child whose family situation is not just hard, but actually dangerous and say "Fuck you, I will make your life just that bit harder by posting on Facebook", it's just baffling.

Lots of people missing the point IMO
The HT said it was OK to film.therefore all the children must have had photo consent.
IMO the best way round it is to cast the child amongst those wearing masks

Ok to film is not the same as ok to put on Facebook or other social media.

Lots of people missing the point IMO
The HT said it was OK to film.

Actually, we don't know what the HT said Brioche. All we know is what the person who posted the video claims the HT said. Which could quite conceivably be a lie in response to being called on their behaviour.

Sorry, posted too soon.

but Merrymouse has said the other point I was going to make. That taking a video isn't the same as pasting it online.

IMO the best way round it is to cast the child amongst those wearing masks

That would work for certain plays, but not sadly for sports days or award ceremonies, or general class photos. Running the 100m in a mask isn't really an option. Of course my foster children have to withdraw from these things, but such a shame especially as one is particularly sporty and yet cannot compete on sports day because of other parents taking and showing videos of the races online and posting them online.

Tiggy - I also think people are naïve about how common this stuff is. I happen to know that there is at least one child in my DD's class for whom this stuff is an issue (I know this in the context of something I was doing at the school where I needed to know). I have no idea who. I couldn't even begin to imagine because all of the families seem to have totally normal lives. It's hidden. People don't go around saying "I'm not just a single mum, I fled six counties". So I suspect that there would be people at the play thinking "This is all bollocks, everyone here is fine. Child protection bollocks, world gorn mad".

My kids are immensely lucky. They have two parents who would walk through fire for them. They have extended family who love to hear what they get up to and who they spend time with (some of whom, yes, live far away and have to content themselves with photos). They have a network of friends built up over the years. To think that, from that position of immense privilege, I would look at a child whose family situation is not just hard, but actually dangerous and say "Fuck you, I will make your life just that bit harder by posting on Facebook", it's just baffling.

That's the nicest thing I have read today, LbrariesgaveusPower. Thank you for posting.

Sounds like a sensible head teacher to me.

'no parents present object' what about the parents not present?

They let the school know in advance if they have any objections.

This has worked well in my local (950 pupil) primary and continues to work still.

IME, my kids' school don't give a fucking monkeys that I complete the disclosure every year saying no to photos on the school website, in the media etc. I am fed up of class teachers asking me if they can "just" post some pics of X, Y or Z event because lots of the pictures they took have my children. Teachers away on a residential last summer were uploading pics remotely - my son was in loads of them, expressly against my wishes. I've got increasingly pissed off about it, but stern words with the head, the class teachers and the school secretary have made fuck all difference. I would never assume the school has all the parents' consent to film. Mine is certainly very casual about it.

Remember the days when you used to buy a 24 or 36 exposure film, take the camera to the school nativity and take all the photos on it, pop it to the chemist and wait a week/pay however many £ to get it developed; then drive round all of our friend's houses, (including those we went to school with 20 years ago but haven't seen since) in order to show them the photos for them to 'oooh' and 'ahhh' over???

No????

Me neither......