There are so many heinous things re., A Child is Waiting
Apr 16, 2007 Adoption
Look at their profiles/advertising: Children Waiting for a Family
I’ve got a HUGE problem with them listing some of the issues with which these children are living and have lived with. It’s absolutely necessary to share histories with people serious about adopting difficult to place children. Potential parents who have gone through homestudies and training need to make decisions about what kinds of abuse histories and diagnoses they feel comfortable dealing with, yes, absolutely. And they should have access to this information through their social workers. But strangers clicking through on the internet? We have no right.
I understand that there’s a dearth of quality foster parents and that recruitment is an important strategy when it comes to finding homes for children who truly need them. But posting a picture of a child and listing their abuse history below? Hell no. It’s not our business that Jane Doe, age 11, loves watching television and baking brownies and has a history of acting out sexually because of past abuse. Photo listings are controversial anyway but to list this kind of detail to people who haven’t proven their true interest in taking kids in? Not kosher. Just because it’s first name only doesn’t mean these kids (pics posted beaming above their details) have had their privacy protected.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I saw the verbage “she is being replaced” regarding a child who was placed and now must find a new home.
I understand the word in its context, but it makes it sound like she’s being replaced with a golden retriever or some such crap.
You said it. Heinous.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Heinous is right. I’m choking on my outrage for these children. To have this posted on the Internet for all to see - including people who have no good reason to know these details - it’s sickening.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
just wow. horrible for these kids, and in general, that the agency doesnt seem to be respecting them as people.
also, feels too much like ’shopping’
April 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
It really REALLY bothers me how MANY children are experiencing disrupted adoptions these days. I’m so sad when I see families go to some other nation, pick their “perfect” little child and when baby has some issues from being in institutional care for years, they disrupt their adoption because child doesn’t fit into their perfect family. If you have a biological child with problems would you place them for adoption. Now I do understand that sometimes these issues are so tough, and so hard that they really need help you can’t give them, but the numbers of displaced adoptees are way on the rise because of the attitudes of the adoptive parents, who just don’t want anything but perfection from their children.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I’m with Erin. I was greatly disturbed by seeing children who have been given back by the adoptive family with lines from the agency like, “This child will do best in a home that is willing to help him/her work through his/her grief.” Who allows a child to be adopted into a home that isn’t willing to work on grief? Seeing kids whose adoptive families decided they weren’t a good fit is disgusting. They’re all wrong.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I can’t even begin to put into words how horrible this is … but let me try.
What they have effectively done is put these children on a visible pity party. Using their adoreable faces and the mentions of trauma to feed their business is deplorable. If any other for profit company had done this, say a pharmaceutical firm making ADHD meds, they would be landblasted for their ethics. Where is the protections for these children’s privacy and dignity.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Wow. Just “wow”. *utterly shocked look*
April 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Photolistings always sacrifice some of the dignity of the children; it would be great if there was no need for them because there were so many parents clamoring to adopt older children. That’s just not the case.
But I’m not defending that particular agency in any way shape or form. The photolistings there have waaaay too much information in them. They should have kept descriptions general and positive, and given more negative details only to serious inquirers. I’ve heard many states privacy rules on what can go into photolistings.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that disruptions of older child adoptions can vary for lots of reasons in the foster care system. I know in Georgia right now it’s lower than the national average, but it can spike up when the system enters crisis and there is little post-adoptive support. From what I have read there is a very direct correlation on post-adoptive support programs and the disruption rate.
Someone who “gives back” a 2-year-old because they’re crying too much… yes, that’s truly disgusting and reprehensible. But in another case, let’s say parents adopt a 12-year-old who was represented by a caseworker as having only moderate emotional difficulties, but instead, it turns out they are sexually aggressive towards the younger children in the home… in a case like that, a biological mother might also be forced into the decision that they could no longer keep the child in their home.
One trend I think is dangerous is “contracting out” to private agencies to place children in the foster care system. I’m signed with a secular private agency that only does foster care adoptions of non-infant children and I think they’re great. But I see some of the other agencies that have government contracts and do all different kinds of adoptions and I wonder how much oversight is going on.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
That is so disturbing. I am actually very much in favor of photo listings in general but I think they should always be very, very vague about personal history and issues. I worked as a volunteer with foster children for many years and confidentiality was always such a huge issue. I never even told my husband about things that came up regarding the kids’ histories. I can’t imagine splashing it all over the Internet for everyone to see and where there is a permanent record of it! What a huge violation of trust and privacy.
Only serious inquiries should have access to personal history and then only through a licensed social worker who can help the potential adoptive parent put it in context.
Equally as disturbing (but sadly, less shocking) is the answer under the title Why Do Birth Parents Change Their Mind About an Adoption Plan?
“In today’s society, it is more acceptable than in previous years for a woman to be a single mother. Because of these changes in society, at times, birth mothers of all ages are often pressured by their family, friends, and church to parent the child regardless of the situation. Throughout the adoption plan, you will face external and internal pressures. You need to keep in mind that you will be the one to deal with the long-term effects of either parenting or placing. You know your limits, desires, and goals for yourself. Decisions need to be based on what you feel is best for yourself and your child, not what others feel is best or what’s “expected†of you. If you decide that parenting is the best option, make this choice knowing that you may be raising the child on your own even when family and friends offer their support. Often time, offers that are made are not honored and you are put in a difficult situation as a parent.”
Wow! just wow. This agency is frightening!
April 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Bert and I actually inquired into a Wednesday’s Child once. He was a 15 year old boy. He read a very sweet, sincere letter on how come he still needed a family. He talked about loving Jimmy Hendrix and baseball. It was vague infromation, not enough to give his privacy away, but just specific enough to let his personality shine through. We called about him the next day. It turned out we knew the social worker specifically assigned to his case. I asked some specific information about him because we wanted to decide whether or not to pursue it. She could tell me nothing until we had done the intial inquiry into a homestudy. Even though she knew me. I was glad then and remain glad that this agency didn’t just take these children’s lives and leave them open for public consumption and gossip. Photo listings and videos can be done in a way that is respectful to the child.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
This is so well written. The whole thing just makes me so sad.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Man. The adoption industry needs some serious watchdogs. Who polices them? This is a question with which I’ve struggled since we adopted our son three years ago.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:18 am
It’s exactly like looking for a new pet online. Down to the “she’d like to go to a big family with an older sister.” It’s horrifying.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:54 am
How utterly heartbreaking, yet I admit I’m no longer shocked.
Unfortunately, its is by and large an unregulated, unpoliced industry. That’s why reform is so imperative.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Those particular photolistings are pretty horrible - and since the kids aren’t in the foster care system presumably there are no limits on what their current adoptive parents can post about them, so maybe we should be grateful they’re not worse!
I do have to say that blanket condemnations of adoption disruptions really bother me. There’s no question that some adoptive parents have totally unrealistic expectations and give up on kids for ridiculous reasons. Some of that is probably their own tunnel vision, but I bet a bunch of it is lack of training and guidance from the adoption agencies, especially for post-PI kids.
The thing is, I’m not sure it’s fair to say “you’d never disrupt your bio kids”, because while your bio kids could certainly have health problems, they wouldn’t have attachment or substance abuse issues, and those can have such a huge impact on a family. Everyone is human, and sometimes I think you do have to balance the needs of the one kid with the needs and abilities of the rest of the family. There are certainly disruption horror stories, but there are also stories of kids who found new families who were better prepared and able to parent them effectively, and in the long run I think they were better off than if their first adoptive families had torn their own lives apart to try and be something they weren’t cut out to be.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Wow. Internet shopping for kids?
That’s so wrong.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
DD - I completely agree with you on the verbage. A hyphen would have made it a whole lot more palatable - “re-placed” instead of “replaced”.
“Replacement” conjurs up images of a returns counter, with people bringing back a product because the one they’ve been given is faulty.
The intrusion into these childrens’ privacy is abhorrent. Is there really no law that can protect their most personal details from being blatantly advertised like this? How is it permissible to show a picture of a child and note that they are taking medication for depression?!
Some of these children are teenagers - what sort of effect would seeing their picture and information on a site like that have on their self-esteem? It’s truly disgusting.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. And to be honest, I think photolistings in general are a bit weird. It objectifies the child IMO and while I know that there is a need for foster parents I just think there are other ways to go about it… ways that are more respectful…
April 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Dawn:
These listings are completely unacceptable. You’re using your journalistic/writer self in this posting. But, I’m reading and wondering how it can be legal. Under whose authority is the information about these children being released to casual observers? I’m entirely across the country, and have no plans to adopt or foster a child but I could look through those pictures and collate all kinds of information about the children.
When you do human subjects research, one of the ethical rules they teach you it is not hard to accidentally provide enough anonymous information that an individual person can be identified. I think someone has not thought through the privacy needs of these individual children (and, I guess, that’s not surprising).
And, frankly, I don’t care about the specifics of the information being released.
bj
April 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
The last speaker on The Adoption Show this past Sunday (I think it was Sandy Young) likened this to a “used car lot” for kids - if you one you like you can drive it off the lot.
Heinous, indeed. But what scares the crap out of me is how many prospective a-parents think this is OK. Whether it’s because they buy into the whole “chosen child” thing, or just plain don’t know any better, I don’t know. But they’re the fuel that keeps the engine running, so we have to reach THEM.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
doesn’t it seem like these kind of details would make it very easy for a predator to find an easy target?