Ray_of_Sunshine
VIP Member
You could argue that the whole adoption process treats prospective adopters differently to biological parents from the start though. A huge part of the process already involves additional scrutiny like medicals, home visits, references, enhanced DBS checks etc. I’m not sure why checking digital footprints or hard drives would suddenly be considered uniquely discriminatory.A few reasons why it is unrealistic, none of which are going to be popular on the thread;
• it is subjecting adopters/fosterers differently to other parents, this is discrimination
• the staff hours and cost for police/social services/whoever to trawl through someone's devices, the criminal justice system can barely function with digital scrutiny as it is
• people have the human right to privacy, there is no legal framework to demand that people who are not charged with a crime or under suspicion of a crime, hand over their devices to be checked
• how could police/social services/whoever be sure the person had handed over all their devices? You can't search people houses for no reason, so they could have other devices they haven't handed over
This is just off the top of my head, I'm no legal
.
If someone wants to care for a highly vulnerable child, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for there to be extremely stringent vetting and safeguarding measures. No stone should be left unturned.
I get the practical points you make though! It’s just all such a shame. At the end of the day, all I really care passionately about is safeguarding vulnerable kids from the likes of Jamie and John.