Should We Photolist Waiting Children?, Page 3

Ethical Guidelines

The goal of photolisting is straightforward: to find families for children. To achieve this goal, photolistings have several objectives:

* alert families to waiting children;

* provide potential adoptive families with individualized descriptions of featured children;

* provide information to interested families on steps to take to learn more about the child and the adoption process; and

inCalifornia Want to adopt? Pregnant? click here

* interest families in adopting other children from foster care if a featured child is no longer available for adoption or the family is not a good fit for the child.

Where does information posted on the Internet fit within the continuum of information sharing in the adoption process? Professionals generally agree that photolistings on the Internet serve as a recruiting tool and should include some information about the child. The question is, how much information?

Disclosing information to adoptive parents about children's backgrounds and status is important from an ethical perspective, but the very public venue of the Internet raises questions about the extent to which personal information on children should be shared in that forum. "Too much information too soon" seems to have become all too frequent, raising the need to closely examine what is best practice.

In developing guidelines for providing information on the Internet about children in foster care, we need to address three issues:

What Information Should Be Included?

Professionals have access to both objective and subjective information for children featured in photolistings. Objective information includes a child's appearance, or an actual photograph, and the child's age or birth date, racial and ethnic background, and any diagnosed medical conditions. Objective information in a photolisting usually doesn't raise ethical concerns.

Subjective information, however-such as a child's strengths, problems, challenges, disabilities, or needs regarding an adoptive family-is often far more problematic. Any subjective information that may be posted should be carefully assessed for its
usefulness and appropriateness. Is the information actually "known," being reasonably guessed at, or very speculative? Even if it is "actually known," the information should be examined critically to determine whether it is complete, up-to-date, and from a reliable source.

This issue is important in constructing initial Internet postings and in ensuring the accuracy of postings that remain on the Inter-net for a length of time. Photolistings are usually updated infrequently-often just yearly. Agencies using photolistings should take care to ensure information remains fresh and accurate.

Consider the following description of a 6-year-old:

John began taking classes under the Early Childhood Intervention program and will need to continue these classes until he enters kindergarten.

Although the listing agency updated the child's age, it failed to update information written before he entered kindergarten. Thus, the listing not only misstates his current school status, it suggests the issues for which he received early intervention services persist, which may or may not be accurate.

How a child's photolisting is developed is also critical. Has the writer of the child's description ever met the child? How was the information collected? Has someone who knows the child, such as a foster parent, reviewed the information for accuracy? Did the child help write a descriptive paragraph? These issues are critical because information can be easily misconstrued.

Case in point: Sarah Gerstenzang, a foster parent and one of the authors of this article, adopted a child in her care in September 2002. The medical summary prepared from the child's case record in preparation for adoption stated the child was "examined on January 5, 2002,...and was found to have the following conditions..." Two of the conditions listed were "prenatal exposure to illicit substances" and "mild to moderate developmental delays."

As the girl's foster parent, Sarah knew the January exam was just a check-up and was unremarkable; that there was no evidence the child had ever been exposed to illicit substances, although there was some family history; and that the referenced developmental delays were noted in an exam in 2000 when the child was 4 months old. At age 2, the little girl was thriving, but the medical summary was so intimidating and inaccurate that Sarah's lawyer advised the child be classified as "special needs."

The presentation of the information is equally important, given the goal of attracting families. To ensure against misspellings, typos, or missed or repeated words, child profiles should be proofread before posting.

Previous Page Next Page

Credits: Children's Voice