The birth of Bonnie Blue’s baby has created debate that is much bigger than whether people approve of her career. Bonnie recently announced that she had given birth to her first child following a pregnancy that had itself been heavily publicised. Bonnie said the baby is healthy and that she gave birth by caesarean section.
Since then, attention has turned towards the way her postpartum body, motherhood and newborn baby are appearing alongside the online persona and adult-content business for which she is already famous.
This raise the uncomfortable question, ‘When does a parent’s right to publicise their own life stop being simply a matter of personal choice and become a child safeguarding issue?’ The answer is more complicated than simply ‘Social Services should take the baby.’
An adult can decide whether to publish photographs of themselves, discuss their pregnancy, talk about their body after childbirth or participate in adult entertainment, however, the baby cannot consent to becoming part of the story.
A parent has parental responsibility and will ordinarily make decisions on behalf of a child, but parental responsibility alone is not an unlimited right to expose a child to anything the parent chooses. The legal system ultimately focuses on the welfare of a child.
A photograph of a parent holding a child is not automatically sexual simply because the mother is an adult-content creator, Likewise, a parent’s occupation does not automatically make them an unsafe parent. The question for Children’s Services would instead be about the circumstances, the content, the environment and the effect on the child.
There is nothing inherently inappropriate about a woman showing her postpartum body. Pregnancy and childbirth change the body dramatically and women should not be expected to hide those changes simply because they have become mothers, and many feel these changes should be celebrated.
The problem arises when an intimate or sexualised presentation of the postpartum body is being commercialised as adult content, particularly where that content is deliberately connected with the person’s identity as a new parent.
Recent reports and social media posts, portray Bonnie Blue as continuing to produce adult material shortly after giving birth, including content centred upon her postpartum body. There have also been reports of videos in which the newborn appears alongside men associated with Bonnie’s adult content work. If these reports are accurate, the important question isn’t ‘Is Bonnie sexualising herself?’, but more importantly, ‘Is the child being deliberately incorporated into an adult-content environment or being used as a part of the commercial sexualisation of Bonnie’s image?’
These are fundamentally different questions. Being a sex worker or adult content creator, does not mean being an unfit parent. The Law does not operate on the basis that someone loses their right to be a parent because they work in pornography or because they engage in consensual sexual activity.
The starting point is the child’s welfare and whether the legal threshold for intervention has been met. There is an important distinction between parental lifestyle and parental behaviour that causes or creates a sufficient serious risk of harm to a child.
Under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, a Court can only make a care order if it is satisfied that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and that the harm is attributable to the care being given or likely to be given not being what it would reasonable to expect a parent to provide, or the child being beyond parental control.
Significant harm does simply mean a Social Worker does not like what a parent is doing or that the public think a parent’s behaviour is disgusting. It requires something substantially more serious including physical harm, emotional harm, neglect, sexual harm or impairment of a child’s health or development.
It would be difficult for a Local Authority to argue that a parent who works in adult entertainment but makes sure the child is never involved in adult content, is never present during any sexual activity or production, ensures all adult material is kept away from a child’s environment, ensures the child’s identity is protected, and the child is otherwise safe, loved and properly cared, that their occupation amounts to significant harm.
However, when the child becomes a part of the adult-content brand, for example being filmed or photographed in circumstances deliberately connected with sexualised commercial adult material, even if not directly, this creates a very different safeguarding question, ‘Whether the child is being exposed to an inappropriate environment, exploited commercially, placed at risk, or subjected to emotional or other harm.’ This could and arguably should, attract the attention of Children’s Services, especially where the child is a newborn and completely incapable of understanding or consenting to what is happening. For clarity, a child under the age of 16, cannot legally consent because the Law considers them to be lacking emotional maturity and full cognitive capacity to understand the consequences when considering adult matters.
So could Bonnie Blue’s baby be removed? The answer is yes, but only if the legal requirements are met. The evidence would not need to arise from Bonnie Blue’s adult career itself, but from real evidence demonstrating a direct connection between the baby and the adult-content activity, showing that the baby was being placed inside the adult-content environment rather than simply having a parent who works in that industry. There is also a further argument that the newborn does not have the ability to consent to becoming an internet personality, and one connected to the adult industry even if directly involved/ connected.
People may strongly dislike Bonnie Blue’s profession, her sexual content or the way she has publicised her pregnancy and postpartum life, but those opinions are not the legal test. The test is whether there is real evidence the child’s welfare is or will be significantly harmed. If the answer is yes considering the legal test, then the authorities have a responsibility to act.
The internet has created a new problem for Child Protection Law, today a newborn’s first days can be consumed by millions, and unlike the adult who creates the content, the child has no meaningful ability to say. ‘I don’t want my childhood to be part of this.’
This may be the most important issue raised by the Bonnie Blue controversy. Not whether her body is sexual, not whether people approve of pornography, not even whether she has chosen what could be considered as an unconventional career, but whether, in pursuing an adults right to publicity and commercial expression, the boundaries protecting a child from being drawn into that adult work have been crossed and therefore exposing the child to significant risk of harm.
We at Johnson Astills know involvement with social services can be frightening. If you are involved with social services, please get in touch with Johnson Astills to see how we can assist. Please call us at our office in Leicester on 0116 255 4855 or our office in Loughborough on 01509 610 312 and ask to speak to a member of the Care Team. Alternatively, you may prefer to email us at legal@johnsonastills.com or fill in our enquiry form.
