thanks

[Grace Hopper]

1 minute ago, livetoread said:

It's a difficult situation, and I've leaned several ways while reading the responses. I think I'd settle on talking to the guy directly and then asking the coach to send out an email requesting that no one send videos to non-custodial parents. I think asking parents to not film is more than is needed, and asking them to not send film to anyone is also more than is needed. The specific problem is giving anything to ex. If someone on the team also has other issues that make sharing film dangerous, then they can speak up as well, and accommodations can be made. 

I understand singling out your kid even more, and that really stinks. It sounds like people would already know it's your kid and there have already been precautions taken that single him out, so I'm not sure how much more damage would be done by asking for no sharing with non-custodial parents. There would be a lot more hard feelings about no sharing in general or no filming.

One issue I could see with this solution is whether people know who non-custodial parents are. Perhaps he should just be named to be clear. I don't know though. Ugh, I'm so sorry everything gets complicated for you and your kids, B&H, even fun things.

Would this also have to include a request to not post any kids other than your own on social media? Or to make sure your pages are set to private rather than public access?

Such a sticky wicket. 

[Terabith]

I would think posting any videos or pictures to social media would also potentially be a danger.  

[Grace Hopper]

OP you cannot be the first person to have ever faced this scenario. What does your attorney advise?

[fairfarmhand]

What about sharing videos and photos with the faces of other kids blurred? My sibling lives overseas and does missions work. When he posts photos of their work, he covers faces with emoji’s to protect the identities of those he’s working with. For these people it’s also a matter of safety.

Eta:

on second thought, with sports this might not be helpful because of Jersey numbers 

Edited March 12, 2023 by fairfarmhand

[livetoread]

14 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

Would this also have to include a request to not post any kids other than your own on social media? Or to make sure your pages are set to private rather than public access?

Such a sticky wicket. 

It really is, and I don't know. Only B&H knows the nature of Ex's stalking/obsessions with son and whether seeing a picture of him on Facebook is likely to cause a problem. Asking people not to post on social media is a big ask, IMO, so the benefit would need to outweigh the consequences of the blowback.

[SKL]

I've been in various groups where I was told and reminded not to share / post photos of kids other than my own.  Without context, it does kind of feel like overprotectiveness.

So given that, I could see the coach explaining that the rule is due to confidential protective orders.  I had hoped that could be avoided in order to not place a shadow over this social outlet, but maybe there's no way to completely avoid that.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, BandH said:

Removed quote. 

 

So practice is inside? 

If you want other parents to not do things like give dh video or give him schedules, then I don't see any way to accomplish that besides telling them about the order of protection. Besides, if your son has talked about someone being his bodyguard, everyone already knows something is going on. 

You could go the route of couching it in terms of what is and isn't allowed by the custody order, but people are not going to take that as seriously as the term order of protection.

It also just seems like a good idea in general. If I see a kid in the company of a known parent, I'm not going to react, If I see a kid in the company of a known parent, but I also know that parent has an order of protection against him, there's a much higher chance that I look twice and text the other parent or the coach. 

An order of protection is not that helpful if the adults in his life don't know about it. 

59 minutes ago, livetoread said:

It's a difficult situation, and I've leaned several ways while reading the responses. I think I'd settle on talking to the guy directly and then asking the coach to send out an email requesting that no one send videos to non-custodial parents. <snip>

One issue I could see with this solution is whether people know who non-custodial parents are. Perhaps he should just be named to be clear. I don't know though. Ugh, I'm so sorry everything gets complicated for you and your kids, B&H, even fun things.

I would not at all expect people to know who is and isn't divorced, much less who non-custodial parents are. Plus, that gets you into domiciliary custody vs shared legal custody and so on, things people are very unlikely to know. 

I don't see any way around just saying 'Please do not share photos or information with Parent X.' 

14 hours ago, BandH said:

 Also any thoughts on how to word this sure to be awkward conversation? 

Perhaps adapt the wording used by your school/district in this type of situation. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by katilac

[AnotherNewName]

14 hours ago, BandH said:

 

 

Unless your state law is very different than other states, I believe the violation would still be against DH and not against anyone sharing with him even if they are "informed" about the order. Generally, a PO is issued against a named party and can't be used against random 3rd parties.

You have two separate issues here. 

1.) The legal side - DH is violating the PO and should be reported to the court.

2.) The social side - how to politely request no one share pictures or videos with your DH. Personally, I would speak directly to the coach and request a general ask of the team parents to not share with your DH.  Mainly because if he does continue to make requests it is more likely a parent will mention it to you, and you can again report him to the court.

Edited March 12, 2023 by AnotherNewName

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

This. We had foster care children in our 4H group, and knowing the limits and safety issues were key for us as leaders to manage it well for everyone as well as not violate the law. I think though it has social ramifications, you probably do need to advise the parents through the coach. One thing I find odd is that there appears to be no media policy. In 4H, we had a strict policy established by the state. Parents had to sign a media release in order to even have their kids included in photos and videos, names in articles, etc. Parents were informed of who had media releases and who did not. They were informed that photographing or videoing any student without a media release would earn their family a one year sit-out penalty from participating in 4H, and no one but 4H leaders and employees could post a photo or video of the group. Take pics of your own child only was the motto.  

There may be a media policy, but that is completely different from a family-sharing-photos policy. 

Sports and theater are more difficult to govern than many other ECs. First, there is no expectation of privacy at a public game or performance (I'm talking about a performance to which tickets are sold to the general public). Second, it can be nearly impossible to take pictures of only your kid. 

There may be exceptions, but be aware that the press generally does not have to ask permission to photograph or interview minors out in public. This is not my state, but this is basically how we handled it when I worked for the newspaper: 

Any person or thing can be photographed if on public property. 

In schools, ask about do-not-photograph directives. 

If you are in a private home or a business, the assumption is that you have permission unless told otherwise. 

Sports practice or game, and anything like a 4-H activity that is in a public setting, they are very unlikely to ask and would rely on coach/leadership to step in as needed. 

Minor in a public setting, they might ask if a parent happens to be close by (both interview and photograph), but they aren't going to call parents. The younger the child is, the more likely they won't talk to them if no parent is around, but tweens and teens? Absolutely. 

Quote from the link: 

"At the same time, parents need to be aware that if they leave their child, particularly a teenager, unattended in public, we’re not going to track down a caretaker. We’ll simply ask the minor for permission.

If you trust your children to take care of themselves in public, we believe we’re warranted in trusting them to decide whether or not to appear in the paper.

We also don’t ask for or need permission to print photos of students participating in public events such as athletic events, competitions, graduations or performances, even if the photo involves an injury." 

Essentially, if you don't want your child's photo or words to appear in the paper, you need to make sure they know that. 

 

[JennyD]

12 hours ago, wathe said:

Coach might send out a notice to all families, indicating that a child on the team has a court order of protection and please do not share photos or video that contain images of any child other than your own.  There is no reason for the other families to know which kid, or protection from whom.

This is the way to go.  

ETA:  I see that not everyone else in the thread agrees with me that this is the obvious solution (or partial solution).  I think that Pam's analogy to peanut allergy is dead-on.  

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by JennyD

[Jaybee]

@BandH, I just want to say that I think your kid rocks. That's a pretty powerful reframing to turn babysitter into bodyguard.

[kbutton]

It's hard if you think that everyone already knows something is up with your kid's having an adult at practice and with the overlap in people at school knowing. 

I think a blanket request to not share pictures that include other kids is reasonable--I would add jersey numbers/names to that because people do often cover up faces with an emoji or blurring. I would be clear that they shouldn't share roster information either--lists of kids or contact numbers for parents.

If a parent needs to share footage or pictures with a potential recruiter, I would think that asking them to notify the coach when they do so (while identifying the recruiter/entity) would be reasonable. 

[Scarlett]

I got confused about who is arguing what point, but a few of my thoughts

1) I doubt that the parent who shared with the dad is in any legal trouble.  If he is a decent person a simple conversation about a confidential PO should be enough.  But either way—
2) The dad who asks for or keeps receiving pics or video that are forbidden is in violation and should be reported.  
3) How do you know anyone shared video? How do you know who it was that shared?  I realize you might not feel comfortable answering and that is ok.

4) Making a broad policy for all kids with all parents is really overkill IMO.

5) I have many friends who foster and I am quite accustomed to be informed it is dangerous and against policy/law for me to post pics of their kids.  One couple friend finalized adoption of their dd probably 6 years ago….child is now 15 1/2.  Her dad JUST LAST week allowed his wife to post pic of the girl on IG.  And I have been called late at night by  them when I forgot and posted her  pic.
 

[Scarlett]

11 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

@BandH, I just want to say that I think your kid rocks. That's a pretty powerful reframing to turn babysitter into bodyguard.

I agree. It made me laugh. 

[Scarlett]

14 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I guess I thought it was fairly widely know that husband has some serious issues and that he had caused a scene at the ball field parking lot.  

Quoting myself to clarify I meant notify all the parents about @BandH’s son.  Not to tell all parents no one can take video.  Just not to share video or pics of her son with the boys father or who ever else is a danger.  Like with the crazy SIL.  I think it is fine to kindly say SIL is likely to share stuff with her brother.  I realize she is not part of the OP but I think reasonable decent people can understand this concern.  
 

 

[rebcoola]

It is the norm in our world to blur or emoji out all faces and identifying info for not our kids.  Idk any kids with protection orders but lots who are in foster care.  It takes any extra 30 seconds.   Faces, numbers, team and school names takes like 30 seconds usually. 

1 hour ago, Grace Hopper said:

Would this also have to include a request to not post any kids other than your own on social media? Or to make sure your pages are set to private rather than public access?

Such a sticky wicket. 

[pinball]

You said he is stalking his son and it is a matter of physical safety…so say that. That your son will be physically harmed if anyone shares photos or videos with his father. 
 

so tell the coach that and tell him to tell the team.

why would you say it any other way?

[Melissa Louise]

14 hours ago, wathe said:

Coach might send out a notice to all families, indicating that a child on the team has a court order of protection and please do not share photos or video that contain images of any child other than your own.  There is no reason for the other families to know which kid, or protection from whom.

This is the most straight-forward way to handle it, though I'd make it clear it refers primarily to not sharing with other team parents.

It doesn't ban photo/video, it doesn't restrict families from taking video of team games etc.

If coach clarifies that it doesn't mean people can't share with their own family members etc I can't see a reason why others wouldn't abide, unless they are MRA types.

I'm curious though - all the sports teams I know of have a social media presence - a club FB page, if nothing else. You do hit a limit of control, not so much in terms of your child's image, but in being able to keep quiet location/games child will participate in.

I would think that Dad has easier/multiple ways of keeping track of the club when he is in the community. I'm not sure how that is dealt with. 

It sounds like a very complicated situation, and I think were it mine, I would have a default of being guided by what my own legal representative advised.

 

 

 

 

 

[KSera]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

I've been in various groups where I was told and reminded not to share / post photos of kids other than my own.  Without context, it does kind of feel like overprotectiveness.

It seems common courtesy to not post pictures of other people’s kids online without permission, regardless of context. Lots of people don’t want their kids’ pictures on social media. 

1 hour ago, rebcoola said:

It is the norm in our world to blur or emoji out all faces and identifying info for not our kids.  Idk any kids with protection orders but lots who are in foster care.  It takes any extra 30 seconds.   Faces, numbers, team and school names takes like 30 seconds usually. 

This. 

[Melissa Louise]

The law may be different over there, but here, there's no law (once you're in public) about photography. People can take and share pictures of you, and of your children. I'm vague on why, but I think it's to do with artistic and journalistic interests. Plus, it's just not controllable in public. On school grounds, yes, there are policies. In some friendship groups, there may be norms about blurring. In others, there isn't.

If I didn't have specific legal advice, I think I'd personally just appeal to the guy's sense of granting favours - hey, sorry I didn't communicate this before, but my kid has an OP and his Dad will get in legal trouble if he asks people to share photos or videos of the kid with him. Could you not share with him if he asks in future? Thanks for understanding.

I'd phrase it in terms of Dad's legal interests, because some men are like that - they don't want to get a bro in trouble, whereas they might think mom is a hysterical woman trying to stop her ex from seeing his kids.

It's probably in the kids' long term interests that the situation they are in, of having an OP against their father, is something that is open and factual. Even when you want to keep things quiet because of stigma, which is justified, or social implications, also justified, shame tends to attach to the things that are kept in the shadows.

Idk. I keep changing my mind. I don't think there's a best way to do this, unless you have legal advice to communicate in X way. I wish it was possible for the OP to move her family away, out of Dad's geographic orbit.

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The law may be different over there, but here, there's no law (once you're in public) about photography. People can take and share pictures of you, and of your children. I'm vague on why, but I think it's to do with artistic and journalistic interests. Plus, it's just not controllable in public. On school grounds, yes, there are policies. In some friendship groups, there may be norms about blurring. In others, there isn't.

It's the same here.

Everyone I "know" on social media posts groups of kids, including their own, without hiding the other kids' identities, unless asked.

Kids who (like mine) have been in sports or performing arts together, or just hanging out together as a group, are photographed and posted just to show there is life outside of home and school ... that the kids have an active social life.  I don't see what's wrong with that, and I have never had anyone complain about me including their kids in photos of mine on my fb posts.  My kids have also been included in various public things on the internet, and I enjoy looking through the photos to see if my kids made it in there.  😛  Nowadays, our schools livestream important games, band performances, church services that have the kids participating, etc.  I've never met a parent who has a problem with this.

I do understand the foster kid thing, and various other good reasons for anonymity.  But a general rule to not show other kids' faces is not typical (but also not unheard of).

Edited March 12, 2023 by SKL

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

There may be a media policy, but that is completely different from a family-sharing-photos policy. 

Sports and theater are more difficult to govern than many other ECs. First, there is no expectation of privacy at a public game or performance (I'm talking about a performance to which tickets are sold to the general public). Second, it can be nearly impossible to take pictures of only your kid. 

There may be exceptions, but be aware that the press generally does not have to ask permission to photograph or interview minors out in public. This is not my state, but this is basically how we handled it when I worked for the newspaper: 

Any person or thing can be photographed if on public property. 

In schools, ask about do-not-photograph directives. 

If you are in a private home or a business, the assumption is that you have permission unless told otherwise. 

Sports practice or game, and anything like a 4-H activity that is in a public setting, they are very unlikely to ask and would rely on coach/leadership to step in as needed. 

Minor in a public setting, they might ask if a parent happens to be close by (both interview and photograph), but they aren't going to call parents. The younger the child is, the more likely they won't talk to them if no parent is around, but tweens and teens? Absolutely. 

Quote from the link: 

"At the same time, parents need to be aware that if they leave their child, particularly a teenager, unattended in public, we’re not going to track down a caretaker. We’ll simply ask the minor for permission.

If you trust your children to take care of themselves in public, we believe we’re warranted in trusting them to decide whether or not to appear in the paper.

We also don’t ask for or need permission to print photos of students participating in public events such as athletic events, competitions, graduations or performances, even if the photo involves an injury." 

Essentially, if you don't want your child's photo or words to appear in the paper, you need to make sure they know that. 

 

Actually it was also a do not share policy, and I should have stated that. The image policy stated that a parent only exercises a legal right to the image of their own child, not anyone else's. It specifically said they could not share photos of other people's children unless they were the group photos that the leader organized and children without image release were excluded. People tend to think they have a right to do whatever the heck they want so I am sure some stuff sneaked through, but we really did try to crack down.

Our local newspaper's policy as well as the county newsletter policy is that legal permission for the use of the image of any minor must be received in order to use the photo, even if a public activity in a public place. This policy has bizarrely reduced the number of photos of under 18's in the paper. It seems to me that could indicate either more parents are getting leery of giving permission or that it is absolutely cumbersome to seek out all the parents, probably the latter. I do think, from a legal standpoint, it is good protection for the newspaper.

In my state, for the most part, the responsibility to NOT violate a restraining order lays with the person on the receiving end of the restraining order. However, the law is written such that if the authorities find out someone who knew that the offender had an r.o./e.p.o. and helped them violate it, that person can also be charged. 

OP, I don't know all the ins and outs of your situation. Don't even pretend to. But my heart aches for your and the kids, and I worry from afar about safety. I do think the coach needs to say something without giving identifying information.

I hope you reported this violation of the order to the police. Probably they won't do anything. 😠😠😠 But at least there might be a paper trail.

[Clarita]

17 hours ago, wathe said:

Coach might send out a notice to all families, indicating that a child on the team has a court order of protection and please do not share photos or video that contain images of any child other than your own.  There is no reason for the other families to know which kid, or protection from whom.

This is my favorite response. Maybe some verbiage about respecting families and setting a good example for children not to try and speculate who made the request, etc. In my neck of the woods, because of complicated home life, I've seen these blanket asks made and some activities which we participate in make those types of statements in general whether or not there is a "need". 

[Meriwether]

I video as much of the kids' sports things as possible. Their father also competes and judges during their competitions and can only watch them a tiny fraction of the time even though they are in the same building together. Sometimes he is in the ring right next to them and cannot watch them. I would not be happy if I was asked to not video them so he can watch them. I also fairly regularly video other people's kids when they can't be there and always appreciate video of one of my kids if two are competing at the same time. I would not knowingly share a video publicly that would be problematic for others.

[katilac]

3 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

The law may be different over there, but here, there's no law (once you're in public) about photography. People can take and share pictures of you, and of your children. I'm vague on why, but I think it's to do with artistic and journalistic interests. 

In America, it's all about being in spaces where you have no expectation of privacy: stores, parks, city streets, sports fields, and so on. 

It definitely also has to do with various legal shenanigans - if I'm trying to get proof of you doing something, I can take your picture in any public place (and so can the police and private detectives). 

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

 Our local newspaper's policy as well as the county newsletter policy is that legal permission for the use of the image of any minor must be received in order to use the photo, even if a public activity in a public place. This policy has bizarrely reduced the number of photos of under 18's in the paper. It seems to me that could indicate either more parents are getting leery of giving permission or that it is absolutely cumbersome to seek out all the parents, probably the latter. I do think, from a legal standpoint, it is good protection for the newspaper.

Yes, it is just mostly not worth the trouble.  

If it was a kid/teen event, you would mostly just go for crowd shots instead, or sometimes a good action shot where the kid can't be ID'd. Really, if I worked at a newspaper that had that policy, I would be asking the organizer beforehand if they had those releases, and probably wouldn't bother going to the event if they didn't. I would definitely not be tracking parents down for permission. 

Anything related to a school, like a football game, the reporter and photographer are going to rely on the coach/leader to inform them if certain pictures cannot be taken, because schools already have those releases. 

They really do not need any legal protection, though. Law and precedence on this is extremely strong. Nobody has to worry about being sued unless the photo intentionally portrays the subject in a negative way AND the subject is not already famous and not in the midst of a newsworthy event. 

The 4-H policy doesn't have force of law behind it when in public settings, but that doesn't matter if the point is to merely keep people from posting the photos. Sitting out is the big deterrent, I would think. 

 I'm assuming the games are played on public fields, so the same type of media policy really isn't practical. It's not just parents but other relatives, friends, people at the park who wander up to watch the game, people practicing their sports photography. My 4-H memories are fuzzy, but I think random people were less likely to watch whatever we were doing than sports, lol. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by katilac

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, BandH said:

Sending pictures when he didn't know isn't a legal problem for him, nor should it be.   I'm confident this guy's going to respect my wishes, but if he didn't and sent pictures knowing the situation?  That's murkier water.  

I am very glad he listened to you. 

[freesia]

I’m also glad the conversation went well. 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, BandH said:

I can't tell what made you think that?

No, practice is outside at this point, since we're in the Spring season.  

Just bc you said something about practice being private or closed or similar. 

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[thatfirstsip]

lIf he's violated the order that's not necessarily a matter you need to run through your attorney, who probably can't do anything about it; you can just file a police report. 

Unless orders of protection vary wildly between your state and mine, they only proscribe the person against whom you have the order from doing the various things specified in the order; they don't criminalize other unrelated people. I don't think the dad has any legal liability, although if he continues you could probably get an additional order targeting him (but likely a civil, not criminal one).

[AnotherNewName]

FWIW when you are renting a facility for practice that is not generally (and I am only saying generally to cover the possibility of a very unique situation) considered a public space and access can be restricted.  If the field is viewable from a public space, then someone can watch from there, but the club/coach does have the right to restrict direct access to the field.

[Drama Llama]

...

Edited March 27, 2023 by BandH

[Faith-manor]

13 hours ago, katilac said:

In America, it's all about being in spaces where you have no expectation of privacy: stores, parks, city streets, sports fields, and so on. 

It definitely also has to do with various legal shenanigans - if I'm trying to get proof of you doing something, I can take your picture in any public place (and so can the police and private detectives). 

Yes, it is just mostly not worth the trouble.  

If it was a kid/teen event, you would mostly just go for crowd shots instead, or sometimes a good action shot where the kid can't be ID'd. Really, if I worked at a newspaper that had that policy, I would be asking the organizer beforehand if they had those releases, and probably wouldn't bother going to the event if they didn't. I would definitely not be tracking parents down for permission. 

Anything related to a school, like a football game, the reporter and photographer are going to rely on the coach/leader to inform them if certain pictures cannot be taken, because schools already have those releases. 

They really do not need any legal protection, though. Law and precedence on this is extremely strong. Nobody has to worry about being sued unless the photo intentionally portrays the subject in a negative way AND the subject is not already famous and not in the midst of a newsworthy event. 

The 4-H policy doesn't have force of law behind it when in public settings, but that doesn't matter if the point is to merely keep people from posting the photos. Sitting out is the big deterrent, I would think. 

 I'm assuming the games are played on public fields, so the same type of media policy really isn't practical. It's not just parents but other relatives, friends, people at the park who wander up to watch the game, people practicing their sports photography. My 4-H memories are fuzzy, but I think random people were less likely to watch whatever we were doing than sports, lol. 

I absolutely agree that the 4H settings are easier to control, and the discipline option was definitely a deterrent. 100% with you on that.

Sobering statistics. 2.5-3 million adults (super conservative estimate I think but taken from a crime statistics website) are victims of d.v. 1 in 7 children are victims of abuse. 14%. Though the brain wants to say, "86% are not abused so not that bad", statistically speaking 14% is literally a reprehensible rate, just so beyond shameful. So that means in any school, any sports group, any band or youth orchestra, it is possible that more than 10% of the students need protection. The sad state of things in America.