4 ms·

I just can't get over the fact that it's somehow legal in the US to advertise young children for adoption on the (public) web, complete with portrait photos and

by tpmx 5y ago

I just can't get over the fact that it's somehow legal in the US to advertise young children for adoption on the (public) web, complete with portrait photos and descriptions of their personalities and backgrounds.

ars 5y ago
This is not unique to the US. For example https://www.rainbowkids.com/international-adoption/eastern-europe https://www.rainbowkids.com/international-adoption/eastern-e... Just search for photolisting you'll find it all over the place.
- brabel 5y ago
  Russia and Ukraine have a terrible problem with orphans. Here's an example from Ukraine: https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net (if you find the US sites shocking, pls don't visit this).
gene91 5y ago
What’s the alternative? I assume that you’re not suggesting that one signs up for adoption and gets assigned a random child. So the alternative is agents with access to the inventory (children) and clients (potential parents). I don’t understand why that’s better than letting clients browsing inventory by themselves.
- dymk 5y ago
  Referring to children as "inventory" is implies all sorts of negative things. Adoption isn't the same as a transaction where you peruse the "inventory" for a new hot tub or something. Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested, that they're willing to go meet in-person with an agency who can introduce them to the children.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The biggest problem agencies have is getting parents to come down. By advertising with pictures people will emotionally bond with a specific child which will prompt them to go through the long, expensive agency adoption process. Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
    - dymk 5y ago
      Yeah, that still strikes me as gross and undignified, and I don't buy the premise that you need to show specific images of specific children that are available for adoption _right now_ to increase the rate at which parents come down. > Charities use images of children to sell the charity. Note that they're not selling the children.
  - brabel 5y ago
    > Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested That's what everyone would like... except that even if they are sloppy (not saying that they are) there's still a lot of children that are never going to be adopted. Do you believe that's better? Spoiler: it's not, because you're making sure most children will have a disfunctional adult life (growing up without a family is extremely hard) instead of allowing more children to live a normal life, but with the increased probability of a few living with bad parents (the number of cases where that's worse than no family at all is probably very small).
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I have no issue with clients browsing inventory. But for privacy reasons that inventory should be very well controlled. Preferably in person. So no online access.
ipaddr 5y ago
Advertising to the biggest audience means the greater the choice between parents for the kid. This isn't a bad strategy. If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement. The privacy question is based on permission from the parent. Many kids model and similiar bios would be available in that setting available publically.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  “If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement.” I remember talking to a couple who had adopted a child. They told me that there would be more placement if the process wasn’t as difficult and insanely expensive as it is now. A lot of people who want to adopt a child are basically forced to go to foreign countries because it’s too hard at home in the US. No need for Facebook ads.
  - BadCookie 5y ago
    Adopting a healthy infant is difficult and expensive because there is more demand for these babies than supply. We don’t need more adoptive families for heathy infants. Adopting an older child is a different situation entirely. It sounds like you are describing a family who was pursuing a healthy infant exclusively.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      That could be. I think they adopted a 2 year old. But in any case the process should not be made difficult or especially expensive (why?). It turns away a lot of well intended people. I have seen the same with animal rescues. Some are very difficult to deal with (mostly because of bad prior experiences) so people go to breeders. In one way it's understandable but when you think about it it's unproductive and self-defeating to punish people for misbehavior of others (people also do this in relationships).
0xy 5y ago
I guess your solution is to not advertise at all and instead have more children in state facilities, where abuse and neglect is orders of magnitude more likely. Kids raised in state facilities get chewed up and spat out, according to statistics.

by tpmx 5y ago

ars 5y ago

This is not unique to the US. For example https://www.rainbowkids.com/international-adoption/eastern-europe https://www.rainbowkids.com/international-adoption/eastern-e... Just search for photolisting you'll find it all over the place.

brabel 5y ago
Russia and Ukraine have a terrible problem with orphans. Here's an example from Ukraine: https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net (if you find the US sites shocking, pls don't visit this).

gene91 5y ago

What’s the alternative? I assume that you’re not suggesting that one signs up for adoption and gets assigned a random child. So the alternative is agents with access to the inventory (children) and clients (potential parents). I don’t understand why that’s better than letting clients browsing inventory by themselves.

dymk 5y ago
Referring to children as "inventory" is implies all sorts of negative things. Adoption isn't the same as a transaction where you peruse the "inventory" for a new hot tub or something. Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested, that they're willing to go meet in-person with an agency who can introduce them to the children.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The biggest problem agencies have is getting parents to come down. By advertising with pictures people will emotionally bond with a specific child which will prompt them to go through the long, expensive agency adoption process. Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
  - dymk 5y ago
    Yeah, that still strikes me as gross and undignified, and I don't buy the premise that you need to show specific images of specific children that are available for adoption _right now_ to increase the rate at which parents come down. > Charities use images of children to sell the charity. Note that they're not selling the children.
- brabel 5y ago
  > Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested That's what everyone would like... except that even if they are sloppy (not saying that they are) there's still a lot of children that are never going to be adopted. Do you believe that's better? Spoiler: it's not, because you're making sure most children will have a disfunctional adult life (growing up without a family is extremely hard) instead of allowing more children to live a normal life, but with the increased probability of a few living with bad parents (the number of cases where that's worse than no family at all is probably very small).
Ekaros 5y ago
I have no issue with clients browsing inventory. But for privacy reasons that inventory should be very well controlled. Preferably in person. So no online access.

ipaddr 5y ago

Advertising to the biggest audience means the greater the choice between parents for the kid. This isn't a bad strategy. If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement. The privacy question is based on permission from the parent. Many kids model and similiar bios would be available in that setting available publically.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
“If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement.” I remember talking to a couple who had adopted a child. They told me that there would be more placement if the process wasn’t as difficult and insanely expensive as it is now. A lot of people who want to adopt a child are basically forced to go to foreign countries because it’s too hard at home in the US. No need for Facebook ads.
- BadCookie 5y ago
  Adopting a healthy infant is difficult and expensive because there is more demand for these babies than supply. We don’t need more adoptive families for heathy infants. Adopting an older child is a different situation entirely. It sounds like you are describing a family who was pursuing a healthy infant exclusively.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    That could be. I think they adopted a 2 year old. But in any case the process should not be made difficult or especially expensive (why?). It turns away a lot of well intended people. I have seen the same with animal rescues. Some are very difficult to deal with (mostly because of bad prior experiences) so people go to breeders. In one way it's understandable but when you think about it it's unproductive and self-defeating to punish people for misbehavior of others (people also do this in relationships).

0xy 5y ago

I guess your solution is to not advertise at all and instead have more children in state facilities, where abuse and neglect is orders of magnitude more likely. Kids raised in state facilities get chewed up and spat out, according to statistics.