Opinion ID: 1839071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: But What Does Foster Say?

Text: Foster insists that Catholic Charities must share the blame. One of his major points is the fact that Catholic Charities gave his parents a brochure entitled What is Adoption?, and in this brochure Catholic Charities represented to [them] that it `assume[d] a sacred trust to the mother, to the child, and also to the adoptive parents.' Continuing, Foster alleges that Catholic Charities further represented to [his parents] that ... `the agency [would] conduct a painstakingly thorough and a time consuming investigative procedure ... [into] ... the child's physical and mental health potential ...' Id. In addressing Foster's assertion, we note that the first statement does not require Catholic Charities to discover hidden conditions or ailments in the child. This statement only emphasizes its commitment to carry out its purpose, which is to find the best homes and parents for the children. Furthermore, when this statement is read in context with the other words in the paragraph, one easily can decipher what Catholic Charities, an agency affiliated with the Catholic Church, means when it says sacred trust. [14] Foster's deletions, in the second statement upon which he relies, are far more egregious. [15] Unquestionably, Catholic Charities conducted a time-consuming investigation. Catholic Charities required the Fosters to complete applications. The information solicited included, inter alia, the parents' religious affiliation, occupation, occupational history, educational history, family history, the types of newspapers and periodicals to which the family subscribed, and references. Catholic Charities conducted an adoptive homestudy, which included some of the same, but far more detailed, information as the applications. It also included descriptions of the Fosters' home and neighborhood and the impressions of the social worker conducting the study. Interviews were conducted with the couple, together and separately, their references, and detailed records were kept concerning all of these matters. [16] Therefore, to say that Catholic Charities failed to conduct a painstakingly thorough investigation is not premised on the facts of this case. Contrary to what Foster asserts, the creation of the medical information form does not obligate Catholic Charities to make sure it is completed and that all things on the form are examined. This simply was used as a tool to assist the parents and their personal pediatricians. It should be pointed out that on the form the term PKU does not have the only empty blank beside it. For instance, the space next to respiration is also blank. Would it be Catholic Charities' responsibility to determine if a child is breathing properly? According to the appellants, one would have to take that position. Foster likewise is reading too much into the form by insisting that Catholic Charities saw the importance of PKU testing and foresaw the harm from a failure to test for PKU by including `PKU' on its ... form with a space for test results. Even if it thought it was important, Catholic Charities still could not perform the test. Moreover, the form also has an empty blank next to circumcision. [17] If we were to discover that being uncircumcised causes some type of problem, would an adoption agency be required to perform a circumcision or notify the doctor, even though the doctor conducts his own examination? [18] According to Foster's argument, this would be the case. Finally, Foster also says [he] has never sought to minimize Dr. Nichols' responsibility for his medical evaluation and care of [him]. But, according to Geoffrey, Nichols had to rely heavily upon the medical information form because he could not obtain his records because the doctor did not know his name or the name of his natural parents. This assertion can be brushed aside for at least two reasons. The foremost reason is that Nichols saw the form, and he examined the child. He saw the blank. No matter what he thought, it was his duty to examine Geoffrey completely before qualifying him to be in good health. Secondly, although he did not know Geoffrey's birth name, he knew his adopting parents. For any information he needed, particularly this type of information, he could have contacted them. Additionally, whether he knew the treating physician is no real reason to shy away from his duty to perform the PKU test. [19] Foster is correct when he states that [i]t may be argued that the hospital physician was negligent in not ordering the PKU Test and that Dr. Nichols was negligent in not further investigating the blank beside PKU. He, however, should end there; instead he insists that Catholic Charities should be cloaked with the same kind of duty.