A child's right to privacy
As foster carers who have a front row seat on how the system should work better, we’d like to inject a note of caution in response to The Australian’s editorial A Dangerous Secrecy (11/06/09).
It was part of the Oz’s reporting on eight children taken into care.
The editorial comments that ‘It is not abused and neglected children who are damaged by publicity, it is the people who hurt them’.
We don’t have a problem with publicity as long as it gets something fixed. We don’t have a problem with freer constraints on reporting matters of public interest, as long as it is done very, very carefully. We’ve asked before whether more information from skilful journos may be in order (see our previous post Reporting more detail on children in care?)
But a child in care has the right to grow up with the privacy the rest of us enjoy. They have enough issues to deal with in relation to who they are and where they came from. They do not need details of their lives spread out for all in their community to read, and remember.
You may face this privacy issue quite regularly in your role as carer. There are instances where adults who find out you are carers launch into twenty questions. Their motives vary.
What happened? they’ll ask.
What are the circumstances with birth family?
Sometimes people even try to be helpful: Were there drugs or mental health or violence or neglect or abandonment or health or developmental delay or behaviour issues?
So what do you say? You may feel cornered, and you may try to stumble through some explanation.
Here’s what we would say, with a smile: ‘Oh, we’re not at liberty to go into any of that with anyone outside the child’s immediate family’. If pushed, we will elaborate further with: ‘All of that information is private to the child’. And if we think a further explanation might make them think twice about being quite so intrusive next time, we might finish with: ‘The child does not deserve to have the details of their private life shared with anyone other than their immediate family’. Keep smiling while you say it, you’d be surprised how that diffuses things.
These children aren’t public property. And we need to be careful not to use them as such, even if our intention is to try to fix the system.
It was part of the Oz’s reporting on eight children taken into care.
The editorial comments that ‘It is not abused and neglected children who are damaged by publicity, it is the people who hurt them’.
We don’t have a problem with publicity as long as it gets something fixed. We don’t have a problem with freer constraints on reporting matters of public interest, as long as it is done very, very carefully. We’ve asked before whether more information from skilful journos may be in order (see our previous post Reporting more detail on children in care?)
But a child in care has the right to grow up with the privacy the rest of us enjoy. They have enough issues to deal with in relation to who they are and where they came from. They do not need details of their lives spread out for all in their community to read, and remember.
You may face this privacy issue quite regularly in your role as carer. There are instances where adults who find out you are carers launch into twenty questions. Their motives vary.
What happened? they’ll ask.
What are the circumstances with birth family?
Sometimes people even try to be helpful: Were there drugs or mental health or violence or neglect or abandonment or health or developmental delay or behaviour issues?
So what do you say? You may feel cornered, and you may try to stumble through some explanation.
Here’s what we would say, with a smile: ‘Oh, we’re not at liberty to go into any of that with anyone outside the child’s immediate family’. If pushed, we will elaborate further with: ‘All of that information is private to the child’. And if we think a further explanation might make them think twice about being quite so intrusive next time, we might finish with: ‘The child does not deserve to have the details of their private life shared with anyone other than their immediate family’. Keep smiling while you say it, you’d be surprised how that diffuses things.
These children aren’t public property. And we need to be careful not to use them as such, even if our intention is to try to fix the system.
|