This guide covers the approval and publication handoff, whether a relative, employee or writing tool prepared the draft. For drafting with AI, use the existing human-review guide. A readable draft and an approved notice are different stages.
Agree on who will review the notice
Ask the family who will collect edits and return the reviewed version. Record that person's role and preferred contact method. Having one coordinating reviewer can reduce conflicting messages, but it does not resolve a disagreement about who may make a particular decision. Staff must follow the firm's process when authority is unclear.
Explain what the reviewer is being asked to check. A person may be comfortable with the tone while overlooking a wrong middle name or service time. A short list of factual checks makes the request more useful than a general invitation to approve the text.
Set a deadline tied to the actual publication arrangement. Newspaper cutoffs and the firm's production schedule can differ. Confirm the relevant cutoff rather than borrowing a deadline from a previous case. Tell the family what happens if edits arrive afterward, including any cost or availability that the publisher has confirmed.
Check the facts separately from the wording
Read names and dates as data, not as part of a flowing story. Check each name against the source the family has reviewed. Ask about unfamiliar spellings rather than replacing them with a more common spelling. Verify relationship descriptions without assuming the case contact list is a complete family tree.
The Co-operative Memorial Society's obituary guide recommends checking facts and reviewing the draft before submission. That is family-facing guidance, not a rule about who has legal authority in every situation. The checklist below is our proposed office process.
| Part of the notice | What to confirm |
|---|---|
| Person's name | Display spelling, nickname and preferred wording |
| Dates | The dates intended for public use |
| Family references | Names, relationships and requested omissions |
| Service information | Event, date, time, time zone and exact place |
| Photo | Correct image, crop and permission for this use |
| Donations | Correct organization and reviewed destination |
| Publication | Website, newspaper and any shorter version |
| Approval | Reviewer, exact version and response date |
Do not infer a life event, occupation, belief or relationship from a writing tool's polished sentence. If it was not supplied or checked, ask or remove it. Smooth wording does not make an unsupported detail true.
Separate public details from private case information
An obituary is public in a way that an arrangement worksheet is not. Check which service details the family wants shared and whether an event is private. A venue address suitable for public attendance is different from a relative's home address collected for billing.
Review contact details and links. A donation request should lead to the intended organization, not an unverified message received from a third party. Do not add account numbers or unnecessary identifying information to make a notice look more complete.
Ask separately about a portrait that has been edited or restored. A family may approve basic cropping without approving a change to someone's appearance. Keep the original file and show the actual publication crop. Do not substitute a generated likeness for a real portrait without an explicit, appropriate discussion.
Give each version a clear identity
Use a version reference or dated proof and retain the actual file sent for review. If the newspaper version is shorter than the website version, identify both. Approval of a long website notice should not silently cover a materially different print notice.
Keep edits together rather than rebuilding the final text from scattered messages. If two people send different changes, record the conflict and return it to the agreed review process. The employee preparing the file should not guess which relative's latest message controls.
A useful request can say: “Please check this attached version, including every name and the service information. Reply with corrections or confirm that this version is ready for the listed publications.” Adapt the wording to the firm's actual process; it is not a legal release form.
A fictional late correction
A daughter approves version three for the website. Her brother then notices that a grandchild's name is missing. The employee creates version four with the change and sends that version back through the agreed review process before publication.
The employee also checks whether a newspaper submission has already been sent. Correcting the website alone would leave two public versions inconsistent. The record identifies which publisher received which file and whether the correction was accepted.
If the print cutoff has passed, the director explains the confirmed options to the family. Staff should not promise that a newspaper can stop a press run without checking. The purpose of the version record is to support an accurate conversation, not to shift blame to the person who approved an earlier file.
Check what actually appeared
After publishing, open the public page and review the title, text, photo, event details and links. Where practical, have another employee perform this check. A successful submission message proves that a request was sent, not that every element appeared correctly.
For outside publishers, retain the confirmation and any proof they provide. Record publication status separately for each destination. A website page being live does not mean the newspaper notice has run, and an outside site's delay does not necessarily mean the office failed to submit.
If a correction is needed, record the request, the affected version, the staff owner and the result. Check related items such as programs or slideshow title cards when the corrected detail appears there too. Do not assume that changing the case record automatically changes every exported or printed item.
Questions families often ask
Can several relatives help? Yes, the family can gather input in the way that suits them. The office still needs a clear route for resolving conflicting edits and receiving the final reviewed version.
Can we change the notice after it is posted? Ask the publisher about its process, timing and any fee. The funeral home's own website and an outside newspaper may have different options.
Does the funeral home have to publish everything in the worksheet? No. Treat the public notice as its own reviewed document. Private case details should not be copied into it merely because they are available.
Put the approval record with the case
Use the blank obituary approval log to track versions and destinations. It contains headers only. Keep completed records in the firm's approved storage, with access suitable for the information involved.
FuneralHQ offers websites and obituaries alongside case work and documents. Bring a late-correction example to a demo and ask how your team would retain the reviewed text and handle each publication destination. This checklist does not imply automatic newspaper distribution or a publisher approval feature that has not been demonstrated.
The FuneralHQ advantage
Documents belong inside the case workflow
FuneralHQ generates, sends, signs, and stores documents on the case, so a completed packet returns to the work it authorizes instead of living in a separate signature account.
We will work through a real example with you, from the first details to the finished record.
See it on one of your casesAbout the FuneralHQ Editorial Team
This guide was written by the FuneralHQ Editorial Team, the in-house team behind funeral home software used by independent firms to run cases, documents, payments, and QuickBooks sync in one record. Our editorial standards explain how we review product claims, outside sources, automation, updates, and corrections.