Around here there are laws regarding it, but the photographer wasn't breaking any of them. E.g. it is illegal to take a photo & publish embarrassing photos of anyone, kid or adult, slipping on a banana peel. Basically, anyone going there could have seen her kid playing football, so what's the big deal?
Many years ago there was a case of somebody appearing in the background in a photo published in a local newspaper. Turns out he lied to his wife he was elsewhere when the photo was taken. The newspapers were discrete about what actually happened in the couple's private life, but the husband sued the photographer and newspaper for getting him in trouble, claiming they should have asked his permission. The court rule against him, as he was in a public place and anyone, including his wife, might have seen him.
Its similar to discussions about bridge photos. Around here, the copyright law is clear that it is legal to take photos of building, bridges, etc and publish them. The only limitation is the access to places from which to shoot it, e.g. you can't just break into an apartment in order to shoot the bridge out of the window.