Woman adopts child and then decides to return it

Russia threatened to suspend all child adoptions by U.S. families Friday after a 7-year-old boy adopted by a woman from Tennessee was sent alone on a one-way flight back to Moscow with a note saying he was violent and had severe psychological problems.

"This child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues," the letter said. "I was lied to and misled by the Russian Orphanage workers and director regarding his mental stability and other issues. ...

"After giving my best to this child, I am sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends, and myself, I no longer wish to parent this child."

The boy was adopted in September from the town of Partizansk in Russia's Far East.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_adopted_boy

Now this is not the first time such an incident has occurred and frankly I find this one much worse:

A Dutch couple has sparked outrage by giving up a seven-year-old South Korean girl they adopted as a baby after claiming she didn't "fit in" with their life-style.

The diplomat and his wife, who had taken in the child after failing to conceive, handed her to social workers in Hong Kong after having two biological children.

They claimed the girl, who was adopted when four months old and has lived in the territory since she was three, was struggling to adapt to their culture, including food.

The girl, who speaks English and Cantonese but not Korean, is neither a Dutch citizen nor a Hong Kong resident, so her future in the territory is uncertain.

"It's bizarre. I don't think it has anything to do with cultural shock," said Law Chi-kwong, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong's Social Work department.

"The child grew up with them. They adopted her when she was a baby; they are responsible for shaping the child's mind and culture.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dopted-baby-failure-fit-in.html#ixzz0kdN3XWJ0


I find the two incidents very different. The american family that returned the seven year old had only kept him for six months and indeed they may have been misinformed about the state of the child's mental health. In the case of the Dutch family they simply discarded a child they had since birth with some lame excuse about the child not 'fitting in' and to make matters worse they didn't even leave the child in its nation of birth or their home country but in a third nation being the territory of Hong Kong.

Now should a child that has been adopted by a family be abandoned if it is deemed to be 'not what they hoped for'? If the child were born into their family and 'didn't fit in' or had 'emotional and psychological' issues they would have to deal with it with a more difficult option of giving it up to social services but that is not so easily done and would need a court order as its illegal to abandon a child.

Now I do think that adoptions shouldn't be made too easy, I also think for the protection of the child that there should be an intermediate period of time where the family can get to spend a long period of time with the child while being monitored in some neutral setting before they are allowed to adopt a child and take it out of its home country, if this had happened then the American family would have noticed that the child had problems they were not able to cope with and opt out of adoption.

In the case of the Dutch family I think they should not have been allowed to simply abandon the child in a third country, but then there is the question of how well cared for the child would be if they were forced to keep it.

This brings up the question of whether people should be allowed to leave their own country and adopt a child from outside.

So what solutions do you think there are for circumstances like this?

Is it that the American family didn't try and fight for the child long enough? Meaning that perhaps they had not done everything they could to help address the child's issues?

What protocols could be implemented so that children who had already been abandoned are not again rejected?

What legal responsibilities should there be for adopted parents?

Should there be a law demanding that parents adopt children within their own country where it can be more closely monitored?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But what gives the grandmother the legal right to send him back? I mean its not the grandmother who adopted the child. For example if it were her natural grandchild she couldn't simply take it from its family and give it up to social services? So what makes adopted children so different.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did she go through a US adoption agency? In the US adoptions are a long, drawn out, intrusive procedure that can take a lengthy time of gathering information about the family wishing to adopt a child. People even complain about it, that its too difficult to adopt children in the States, that they make its a 'hassle'. Now you can understand why there is so much scrutiny involved. I'm wondering if the US adoption agency were even involved in this because for many overseas adoptions the US adoption agencies don't seem to have much involvement.

They were negligent but what I don't understand is why foreign adoptions are not given the same scrutiny by US agencies, meaning even if the procedures are lax in another country, say where you can simply pay for a child, why these adoptions are not more scrutinized when they are back in the US. Did you read the horrific tale of the Dutch couple that adopted a Korean toddler only to abandon it in a third country? I have the link above after the lead story.

I'm starting to think that either they change the laws so there is more scrutiny in foreign adoptions or make them illegal altogether.

Its seems there is a double standard regarding adoptive children as opposed to the guidelines that would protect a natural born child in a family.

Ha. I wonder where all those anti abortion people are now who care so deeply about the unborn. Why are they not up in arms about the treatment of children like these raised in adoptive homes and ill treated by their caregivers? Why are they not crying out in pain over the abandonment and treatment of the children already among us?

Before they even consider the treatment of children that are abandoned, abused, neglected, left to faulty and inadequate agencies for care they want to bring MORE unwanted children into this world. I find it simply so sad and completely hypocritical. For them the woman who aborts because she's not ready to care for a child AND KNOWS IT doesn't come under the same scrutiny as those who actually neglect children, as a matter of fact she is worse, you know she's the uncaring, irresponsible, murdering bitch who opened her legs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They would rather she simply had it because you know its a life and all and then they can completely forget about these children all 'full of life' after the fact. Very convenient indeed.

But examples of people like that in the OP? No. Complete silence.

 

Don't adopt from overseas. Sheesh- isn't it obvious why?

 

Tell that to Angelina and Madonna both of whom payed money to be able to easily take the children they now have. Overseas adoptions are popular because they are so easy and CHIC. But I agree with you save I think that there should be more regulations and oversight or it should be simply illegal.

 

Desperate parents go for overseas adoptions (on a whole, unlike Madonna or Jolie) because it's too difficult to qualify for an American child; because they set the bar too high.

They find a way to sneak the kid over here somehow then claim some sort of right, forcing the child to become an adoptee- I am no expert in that field.

I have a good friend who adopted a child from Russia- the kid is fucked up mentally- barely responds/barely speaks, is severely autistic- is 9 and has the mind of a two year old... will never mentally be above a ten year old etc...

There's a reason these countries are finding every which way to get these kids out of the nation- these kids are the neediest of American medical care which they simply can't get "over there".

These doctors and nurses are making the best choice for these fucked up kids- hand them off al America- "best care anywhere".

I mean fuck- we're all eBay users, right? Don't we all know caveat emptor?!!!

 

Its not the countries are advertising their children to be adopted its the parents in the West who seek to avoid the 'high standards' that makes it difficult to do so here. But these high standards exist for a reason, so that people who adopt don't end up in a situation they are not prepared for. For example in the US and many European countries they will not paint a pretty picture of the child. They will give a full background of what difficulties are to be expected if the child has underlying issues and then scrutinize the family to see if they can actually cope with such conditions. In truth all parents, natural and adoptees want a perfect healthy little child which is why there are so many children left in adoption homes in the States because people don't want a compromised child or teenager who isn't a baby and has been in a dozen foster families and has obvious issues of abandonment, rage, low self esteem, learning disabilites and god knows what else.

I do agree with you that many of the agencies in eastern europe welcome someone from the west to come and give these kids a chance and get them out of an already overtaxed and under financed system in their own countries. I agree with all that. But why is it that these kids are not monitored by the system in the US? Why is there a lesser standard for an overseas adoptive child than there would be for a natural born child or even one acquired in the US? Trust me a family that abandons or sends their own birth child or a legally adopted child acquired in the US to another country in such a manner as has been illustrated above in Bells post would be prosecuted for child endangerment.

 

By the way they don't have to 'sneak' the child into the US they just have to show papers from the foreign government and agencies that the child was legally adopted.

 

The stricter controls and monitoring will have to come from the US side. You know the woman who arranged for Angelina Jolie's adoption of Maddox was prosecuted for corruption because she was selling children to american parents, children who also had not been legally given up by their parents (the woman was an american go between). Consequently americans are no longer legally able to adopt children from Cambodia. They can adopt them and live in Cambodia or some other country but they are not able to return to the States with the children.

What does the law state in Australia concerning overseas abortions? How is it monitored and controlled?

 

wow that's a horrible story. poor kid has been through the ringer. at 7 it must be hell to be adopted in a foreign language.

as for the dutch couple. wtf was that about? the girl didn't "fit in" with their life style? wtf??? they should be shamed every day of their lives. if they lived by me I think I'd take an afternoon off and I'd stuff the articles about their actions into the mail boxes of all of their neighbors as well as at their work - let their friends and colleges see what arse-wipes they truly are. this could be fun to do every year or so

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is called buyer's regret. You don't like the product, you return it. Every adopted kid should come with at least 6 months warranty anyway, and no question asked return policy...

 

How do you balance this? I've heard horror, well, rather "intense", stories from friends trying to adopt - they express a process that is lengthy and intrusive (much like you allude to). Making it nigh on impossible to adopt, unless you have the proverbial Daddy works, Mommy stays home with 2.2 children, a dog, and a white picket fence surrounding a beautifully manicured lawn. (USA dreamland "perfect home" - a situation approaching extinction)

Do we really want to take such a microscopic view, based on each individual child? Not to say this wouldn't be the ideal situation, but seems, of course, to be highly unrealistic. Where does a somewhat more statistical (and realistic, IMHO) view, based on how many children can be "saved" by a different approach, lie?

Note: All my numbers referenced below, unless otherwise indicated, are purely hypothetical. If someone can, and desires to do so, please correct my hypothetical assumptions - only difference, you need to be prepared to back up your assertions, since yours would be presumed to be "factual".

My thoughts (hesitate to even label them as "hypothesis" yet):

What if the adoption guidelines were "relaxed" rather than "tightened"?

Hypothetical: Let's say, under current conditions, 100 extremely troubled, deprived and / or psychologically disturbed children are immediately adopted from Russia, or "overseas" in general, using today's screening techniques.

This implies an unlimited supply and demand, pretty much the way it is today, at least for toddlers and below.

In this scenario, 1%, or one of a hundred, end up in a situation similar (or worse) than that of the OP. Hell, let's say 5%. Even so, out of the remaining 95, it would seem to be safe to assume that something close to, yet less than 95% of the 95 children referenced are not returned, thrown to the streets, or murdered directly or indirectly as a result of said adoptions. From there, it's a pretty easy correlation, if 5-6% are returned, murdered or otherwise disposed of, than ~95% are left in the original adopters'(?) supervision. Presumably, allowing for a substantial margin of error, at least 80% of those have landed in an "acceptable" home. [or maybe not - anyone have any "real" statistics?]

Now, I have not researched this, but my "common sense" would tell me that a couple willing to spend serious (5-6 figures) amounts of money plan one of two things: To take very, very good care of that child, or to seriously and severely abuse the child, probably for money or sexual exploitation. Don't forget that some of those 5-6 children would have been "abused" anyway...

So which is worse? Relax the laws, allowing for thousands more children to be adopted (knowing that at least some of them will be abused, maltreated, etc. - vs turn a blind eye and ensure [probabilistically at least] that thousands will be starved, abused and killed on their native soil.) Should we give them a chance here? (In the US, UK, Australia, etc) Or leave them be, wherever and in whatever condition they might be at the moment. Intervene, or not to intervene?

In either event, some children will be molested and killed. Let me say that again: No matter which course you choose to pursue, some of these children will be molested and killed. No ifs, buts or ands...

Picking back up on the statistics, and without going all scientific and dry, it would seem to me that a pool of women that at least "think" they want to be mothers" statistically offers a better chance to any individual child than that pool which wishes them harm - for whatever reason - that wished "abortion" (OMG, there's that word again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) , or wishes them harm / elimination post-birth).

So, it's kind of like a chess game - be careful for "unintended consequences" - cause they are out there, and they will bite you in the ass. Personally, I think we should streamline the adoption process, reducing it to some cursory interviews / inspections and go from there. After all, if the adoption process can beat the (apparently) entirely whimsical and capricious process currently in place for foster care and adoption, we've done better than mainstream America. Not a fact to take lightly...

Agree or disagree?

 

A couple of thoughts on this:

It is relatively common knowledge that many - most - children in Russian orphanages have major problems of one kind or another. They do have one thing going for them as far as many Americans are concerned though - they are white where as most children in American orphanages are black or Latino.

A single person in their 20's who wants desperately to adopt a child may have some issues to contend with. Adopting a child when you have not been able to establish and maintain a long term working relationship with another adult should be a warning flag to any governmental agency involved.

Unfortunately, I am not very surprised that she figured she could just return him like a blouse she didn't care for after wearing it a few times. This is how many Americans have become in the last few decades - self centered, lazy, willfully ignorant and uncaring about others. I encounter them in traffic every day, they do as they wish regardless of who gets hurt. All that is important to them is to get to Micky - D's for that hot latte they desire at this moment, and they will run down a pedestrian to get it 30 seconds quicker. Throwing away a child they no longer want is congruent with this type of mentality.

A child with issues needs help to cope and resolve those issues. Acting out (lighting fires, making threats etc) can be re-channeled into positive activities, and violence is never the correct technique to employ with that.

 

The 7 years old Justin Hansen (Artyom Savelyev) that was sent back alone to his homeland:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Link to video.

Poor child, he had to go through all that. That's what happened when a troubled kid met mentally ill irresponsible adults.

As for the other parent in the OP, it's not the kid that can't "fit in" in their life style. It's the couple that are not fit to be parent.

The response from the Russian government:

MOSCOW — A top Russian official demanded that all child adoptions by U.S. families be frozen Friday after a woman from Tennessee shipped her 7-year-old adopted Russian grandson on a one-way flight back to Moscow all alone.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the actions by the grandmother, Nancy Hansen of Shelbyville, "the last straw" in a string of U.S. adoptions gone wrong, including three in which Russian children had died in the United States. The cases have prompted outrage in Russia, where foreign adoption failures are reported with gusto.

The Russian education ministry immediately suspended the license of the group involved in the adoption — the World Association for Children and Parents, a Renton, Washington-based agency — for the duration of an investigation. In Tennessee, authorities were investigating the adoptive mother, Torry Hansen.

Read more
​

 

There's more to this than we know about. From what I read the boy has mental problems that the adoptive mother wasn't told about when she adopted him. That wasn't a very nice thing to do to an adoptive parent I'd say. Once she found out , she wanted to not have the problems he would have given her.

Why couldn't they find Russians willing to adopt their own kids? :shrug: