[Woodland7]

Quick question about the photolisting sites, such as Adopt Us Kids... The children listed on that site, are they typically the ones with the most difficulty in being placed? We inquired via our agency about one child listed on our state website (and she was also on Adopt us kids). The narrative was very positive and she was just listed-- her SW indicated that she has "significant trauma history" and "significant needs" and they will not place her with a family with other kids in the home due to the amt of attention she requires.
I have seen other narratives and many indicate that the child has significant needs or experienced much trauma, and especially if they need to be the youngest or only, child. I was surprised by the lack of any of that in this one narrative and wonder if, in general, the write-ups are "padded" with more positive things b/c the children are most difficult to place and the SW is trying to generate some calls?

[adoptsearch]

Yes the write ups are often drastically misleading, whihc is a real shame. We definitely encountered one that was not misleading and that was encouraging. However, basically be prepared for there to be very little correlation with reality and the profile write-up.

[TemporaryMom]

I don't agree with pp. It really depends on the agency. Some agencies are required by their code to post all children to the online sites, not just the difficult to place children.

With that said, there are some things to consider when looking at online sites. And, there are some key phrases to warn you.

* Must be youngest child, or only child in home --> Potential RAD child

* Must have no pets in family home --> Potential ODD or other child

* Anytime you see an under 5 singlet --> Why aren't the foster parents adopting? --> This is a 50/50 issue. Keep in mind that there ARE foster parents out there who are ONLY foster parents and do not adopt. Often in my area, those foster parents are those who like the babies. So, it isn't uncommon to see a singlet under 5 but I would always ask why the foster parents aren't adopting in that situation.

The best thing to do when looking at local children is find out what the rules are at the agency. I posted a response for a sibling set on AdoptUs and emailed the listed worker who informed me that it was a mistake for the child to have been posted because they had already matched the child.

Many people have found children on these sites. And that is NOT to say that you should be discouraged because of the other potential issues. Many times a child may exhibit certain characteristics in one parenting style and be totally different with another. And, there are many therapies available to help with the hard issues.

Good luck on your journey

[Pepperminty]

In my experience, yes, the kids on the photolisting are the hard-to-place kids. And in our state, the listings are never up to date, so it's possible to submit your file for a child only to have their worker tell your worker the child is already adopted.

I still think it's worth submitting if you see a child who potentially fits your criteria, because even if that child isn't a match for you, the worker might remember you and contact you about another child on their caseload, who isn't on the site.

That is how we foster/adopted our son. We put ourselves in the running for one boy, they turned us down for him but called us a week or two later about another little guy they had just gotten.

[Scrapsathome]

We also found out that these photo listing sites sometimes have adoption match parties. These parties are huge with lots of fun things to do and gifts for the kids. So the CWs want to bring the kids to enjoy the event. But the photolisting site requires the kids to be currently listed on their site. So, even if there is already a match chosen for the kids, the CW lists them on the site so they can go to the party. It seems dishonest to me.

Oh, and "must be youngest or only child in home" can also mean that the kid is a danger to other kids regarding SA. Our AKs cousins are currently listed on the adoption exchange. I can't believe that there wasn't a warning like that added to the info about them. And I'm surprised they're trying to find a home for them together.

We inquired on kids that didn't have any real issues mentioned in their listing... and they turned out to be predatory towards each other, extremely violent, blind, dying... all kinds of things that I never would have submitted an inquiry if I'd known.

[zombie]

Adoptuskids.org has a special login that agencies/social workers can get. With that login, you can see a private section on the kids that has more information on their special needs and risk factors. You might want to encourage your worker to get access so that they can find out more about the kids for you. Some states don't put any special needs info online, I think it is against state law in some places.

[biojen]

Where I am the agencies are required by law to leave out any diagnoses or behavioral problems in those descriptions. That's why you'll see really vague statements like "needs a highly structured environment" or must be the youngest child. In those cases I think the workers are trying their best to not sugar coat these kids' problems, but their hands are kind of tied. That's not to say all of the listings are that way - I know of a couple of states that are allowed to give more information and just don't. In my limited experience those sites are mainly for hard to place kids. But as someone else said, that doesn't mean you won't find your kid there.

[adoptsearch]

I understand what the PP is saying but the type of examples I have observed are not simply due to legal restrictions I am talking about profile statements that are flat out wrong but that make the child sound much more desirable. The statement looks great until you receive the second round of information at which point you can only conclude that it was a serious error or a lie.

[EdyDedd]

I understand what you're saying about the write-ups being misleading, but on the other hand I believe a child has the right to a certain amount of privacy. I don't think it's right to post their baggage posted publicly. Of course relevant information should be given when a SW inquires and full disclosure is important before any decisions are made, but as far as posting everything on a site that's accessible to the public, I'm glad there are laws to protect privacy.

[Pepperminty]

EdyDedd, I agree with you entirely. They are children, and it's not okay to post harmful information about them online. If prospective adopters have to take the extra step of asking their adoption worker to get the low-down, so be it. I know that extra step is a hassle because the kids' workers don't respond to inquiries half the time, but that isn't the kids' fault.

[adoptsearch]

There's a large difference between protecting a child's privacy (by not disclosing certain things) and telling outright lies. The former is ok and accepted by almost everyone. The latter is not acceptable and does a disservice to both the child and the prospective families.

[Woodland7]

Very interesting discussion that has followed my OP. Thank you all for the replies! I have been astounded by the specifics that I have read about some children (I think that one in particular was NOT Adopt Us Kids but rather a state site?)-- detailing how many family members "threw out" the boy and how he was diagnosed with XY and Z. I believe these children have a right to privacy, absolutely! That is what the 2nd step is. However, as someone had mentioned here, protecting privacy is required and commendable. Outright lying is quite different, and I don't think it has a place when dealing with trying to match child and family. I don't see how it is in the best interest of the child to promote them as something "else" vs just not disclosing a disgnosis until step 2.

[o2b30again]

We have been looking into a sib group online that has 0 issues...that just isn't possible when the oldest is 14 and they have been in care for 3yr. I realize that there is privacy issues but a "bit" more information would save a ton of time on everyones part. I know many agency's won't allow you to submit more then one homestudy at a time in fear that you may be matched with more then one group. How are you suppose to gauge if that is the right group to even submit on?

Concerning this group I am looking into I searched and found their local "hearts" broadcast on the TV and found out that the youngest has a club foot and mobility issues. I am ok with that but they could have come up with something that stated he needs to see specialists or has some correctable mobility issues. How many other families submitted that wanted the 0 issues only to find out one has a physical disinformation? The SW'ers need to let people do some of the leg work and eliminate themselves. After I inquired on the children I was told that they would send me their top 5 needs and where to send our homestudy...really just the top5??? Thought they didn't have any??? Now if I was the faint of heart I would run but for whatever reason this group is pulling our family in..even the children. We will have to wait and see what those "0" issues really are.

[Pepperminty]

Originally Posted by o2b30again

How many other families submitted that wanted the 0 issues only to find out one has a physical disinformation? The SW'ers need to let people do some of the leg work and eliminate themselves.

Any potential adopters who want 0 issues should not be looking on a state or national website--ANY foster care or adoption worker will tell you that.

The training classes we had to attend in order to foster or adopt from our county were basically 30 hours of training on this one point: "If you are not here to foster or adopt damaged children with significant issues, please do yourself a favor and leave now. We don't have any children for you."

So, I think the SWers listing kids on those sites have every reason to believe that if you have an approved homestudy or a foster care license, you have heard the above message, and therefore if you are asking about kids on a website, you aren't looking for kids without issues.

Maybe it was a typo!?

[o2b30again]

No it wasnt a typo. This was stated by the SW on the Wed. child news broadcast of the children that i found. So either she is lying or there are kids with O issues on the adoptuskids site.