17
   

ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

 
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 02:47 pm
@boomerang,
I found that odd as well...
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 02:58 pm
Guess when this article was published:

Quote:
......Corruption also has been blamed for an increase in complaints from parents who said they adopted children who were represented to be relatively healthy or afflicted with correctable medical conditions. Only after getting home did those parents learn that their children were impaired by fetal alcohol syndrome, mentally ill after years of neglect in orphanages, or both.


As those children have grown older, an increasing number have been turned over to foster care, placed in institutions or returned to Russia. Their demoralized, financially burdened families say they no longer can handle youngsters who've beaten playmates, stomped and choked siblings or tried to burn down their homes.

....... Adoptive parents have charged in lawsuits that agencies or facilitators gave them records that had been translated inaccurately or that omitted crucial negative details about the child's background.

Only after returning to the United States did some parents discover that their children had serious physical ailments that would make it impossible for them to live a normal life. Others learned that their increasingly violent children suffered from one or more psychological syndromes triggered by early abuse or long stays in orphanages.

......Inga, who has developmental delays, reactive attachment disorder and fetal alcohol syndrome, told the Whatcotts she had been placed twice with Russian families, but was returned to her orphanage because of her behavior. The Whatcotts, who have three other children, two of them adopted, severed their relationship with Inga after the girl repeatedly attacked siblings and playmates and tried to kill Cilla while she was bedridden after a hysterectomy.


http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20000813newrules3.asp
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:01 pm
@boomerang,
is your point that the Hanson's either knew or should have known the score?
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:02 pm
@boomerang,
And considering that this woman had another child - she would also be concerned for this child's safety.

I can only imagine that she had be torn.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:07 pm
Putin had supposedly signed laws to reform the system so if they'd read this article they'd have probably thought they were safe.

But I've never suggested they shouldn't have known. They should have done their homework. They should have been told.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:15 pm
@Linkat,
Quote:
But would happen if something worse happened? Would one know how to handle it? Would they be able to get the necessary resources and help? I could only imagine that after wanting and desiring a child for so long that she would have to be at her whit's end to send him back? I agree this was not the best way to handle it (or even near so) - but maybe giving the benefit of the doubt - she just did not know how to cope any longer...


The so call mother is a nurse repeat is a nurse and any normally intelligent person can find some level of help/treatment for such a child before placing him on a plane to Russia. So please people stop the nonsense
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:22 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Putin had supposedly signed laws to reform the system so if they'd read this article they'd have probably thought they were safe.
the conditions in Russia are very well known...from 2007
Quote:
Valentina Pavlova heads the Moscow office of Kidsave, an American organization that runs foster-care programs in Russia. She says that even in standard orphanages, the lack of contact with the rest of the world leaves children utterly unprepared for adult life.

"When children leave those institutions, they enter another world they've only seen on television," Pavlova says. "Very few are able to cope because they've never had anything of their own or experienced normal relationships. Above all, they've been deprived of love."
Pavlova agrees with most other experts who say that the only way to help orphans break out of lifelong cycles of isolation and lack of education is to put them in the care of adoptive or foster families.

But Altshuler of the Child's Right group says that officials in charge of the country's state orphanages are obstructing new foster programs because they don't want to lose state funding.

Altshuler calls the current system an "orphan industry." He says it won't improve without public pressure. But he says that as long as the state keeps hiding orphans from society, attitudes about them won't change.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9810880&ps=rs
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:28 pm
@BillRM,
I'm not saying she shouldn't have - I'm saying we do not know all - we do not know what she had tried. I've been reading several articles and there is now all this information about other adoptive parents that have gone through such things and the "help" they received did not help - many centered around giving the child medication - which did nothing or little.

Yes - you should do your homework (of course) when adopting - but should not the adoptive agencies also help before hand? Make sure they know about the children and the situations? Obviously this is not in the best for the child or children (as this is not the first child to be "turned" back in - although the first to be sent literally back) - wouldn't it be best for the child, to inform propective parents of the issues thus decreasing the chances to send the child back?
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's incredibly corrupt.

I think it was my first post on this thread where I said I thought America should ban adoptions from Russia. I believe they should have done it a long time ago.

I am sympathetic to the children in these orphanages but nothing will change for them if we just continue adopting them without forcing Russia to take care of them first.

The little girl I know from Russia -- she was told that if she tried to run away she'd be eaten by dogs.

Nice.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:33 pm
@Linkat,
Quote:

I'm not saying she shouldn't have - I'm saying we do not know all - we do not know what she had tried
Grandma has been all over the media defending sending this kid back. Her defense is that he was dangerous, she does not talk about all of the things they tried . Logic suggest that this is because they did not try, that they made a knee jerk decision that they did not want to deal with this kid, that they cut their losses and sent him back.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:36 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
I think it was my first post on this thread where I said I thought America should ban adoptions from Russia. I believe they should have done it a long time ago.
I am completely with you on that. The Russian families by and large will not take these kids because they know how badly they have been treated and thus damaged, so the Russian Government pawns these kids off on us, at a cost of about $40,000 per kid. It is outrageous that our government allows this. But as long as they do Americans need to wise up, stop being saps.,
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:36 pm
@boomerang,
Here is a wonderful article about what you can do right about such adoptions (and wrong):
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/international_adoptions.html

And just part of the article:
"Perhaps, said a world renowned-expert on international adoption and the issues of post-institutionalized children, the Cravers had a real reason to fear a fatal outcome. “Parents (who abuse their adopted children) are responsible,” said Dr. Ronald Federici, a developmental neuropsychologist from Virginia. “But they are responsible for being ignorant and for not having support to address years and years of cumulative problems. Parents reach a point of burn-out.”

Federici, a father of seven internationally adopted children and the author of “Help for the Hopeless Child,” has worked on all of the 18 fatal Russian adoption cases in the United States.

All have shared similar circumstances: a virtually unregulated Russian and American adoption system that can allow children with significant medical and neurobiological issues to be placed in homes of parents ill-equipped to handle them, parents clueless about these significant issues and a serious lack of post-adoption services for these parents."

I think one item that stands out is the serious lack of post-adoption services...

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 04:36 pm
@ossobuco,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
ossobuco wrote:
You are jumping leaps re this young child, David. I think it is your own fear in action. It is possible he is as damaged as you say - we don't know that. It is much more likely that he is a mixed up mess and could have been helped, but that he was tossed in a bin, forthwith, but the putative adoptive mom.
You are just postulating in fear and the boy is living this stuff out.
but, Osso, he never threatened ME; he is not mad at ME
He does not know where MY real estate is.

What do I have to fear from him ?
What is your thinking in that matter?
David



ossobuco wrote:
Excuse me, that was by the putative adoptive mom.

My thinking is that much of your a2k persona is as a stalwart about self defense,
It has been, yes.


ossobuco wrote:
and that underlying the continual posting about it is a seemingly constant fear
of harm from others to you and others, a kind of fear based living.
That was true, for a different reason:
before the death of communism, I expected the commies to win,
because of weak American defenses. That was indeed, fear-based living for decades. That is no longer the case.
Tho I have posted obsessively qua the 2nd Amendment,
it has been for the benefit of my fellow Americans.
I have already had enuf guns for personal security for many decades.
I plan to post a jubilant celebratory notice of the repeal of Arizona 's gun laws
(awaiting only the Governor's signature on the statute).
Its NOT for me; I 'm not going back there to live;
its too scorching HOT, but the FREEDOM thrills me, from afar.





ossobuco wrote:
This seems so strong that there appears no room left for compassion for a rejected small child,
To practice compassion is WONDERFUL, from a position of personal safety. Torrey n Nancy were not safe.

To practice compassion within a zone of danger, is irresponsible.



ossobuco wrote:
or any understanding that the child had a human right to receive care
if indeed he has psychological or neurological disturbance.
Maybe he 'll get that now.
Whether it works, remains to be seen.





David
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 04:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


He does not know where MY real estate is.

My thinking is that much of your a2k persona is as a stalwart about self defense,
It has been, yes.
That was a given.


ossobuco wrote:
and that underlying the continual posting about it is a seemingly constant fear
of harm from others to you and others, a kind of fear based living.
That was true, for a different reason:
before the death of communism, I expected the commies to win,
because of weak American defenses. That was indeed, fear-based living for decades. That is no longer the case.
Tho I have posted obsessively qua the 2nd Amendment,
it has been for the benefit of my fellow Americans.
I have already had enuf guns for personal security for many decades.
I plan to post a jubilant celebratory notice of the repeal of Arizona 's gun laws
(awaiting only the Governor's signature on the statute).
Its NOT for me; I 'm not going back there to live;
its too scorching HOT, but the FREEDOM thrills me, from afar.

I remember being afraid to go to Phoenix, back in the early eighties, all those people packing guns, and what I heard were all the roads around the city with bars/et al with a lot of gun folk and booze, well lit.

I admit my then view was also a page of fear of the unknown. Still, many years later, I am still more comfortable around people talking, discussing, arguing, enraged even.. if none have guns on their belts.

I think you paint armageddon, David.

ossobuco wrote:
This seems so strong that there appears no room left for compassion for a rejected small child,
To practice compassion is WONDERFUL, from a position of personal safety. Torrey n Nancy were not safe.

To practice compassion within a zone of danger, is irresponsible.

The zone of danger, if there is one, is that the child has been tossed again, with what I take as no recourse to advice or care.





ossobuco wrote:
or any understanding that the child had a human right to receive care
if indeed he has psychological or neurological disturbance.
Maybe he 'll get that now.
Whether it works, remains to be seen.





David
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 04:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
People need to realized they're fueling a very corrupt system.

I don't know how it happened but someone did a great job educating Americans about the hazards of adopting children from foster care in this country while failing to mention that conditions are often worse, and the children more traumatized by insititutions overseas.

There's a half million kids in foster care right now and I'll wager a big chunk of them are 8 year old boys yet people pay $40,000 and travel halfway around the world to adopt an 8 year old boy.

Someone has sold the idea that foster kids = bad, damaged kids while overseas orphans = good kids.

I think we're being lied to.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 05:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


He does not know where MY real estate is.

My thinking is that much of your a2k persona is as a stalwart about self defense,
It has been, yes.
That was a given.


ossobuco wrote:
and that underlying the continual posting about it is a seemingly constant fear
of harm from others to you and others, a kind of fear based living.
That was true, for a different reason:
before the death of communism, I expected the commies to win,
because of weak American defenses. That was indeed, fear-based living for decades. That is no longer the case.
Tho I have posted obsessively qua the 2nd Amendment,
it has been for the benefit of my fellow Americans.
I have already had enuf guns for personal security for many decades.
I plan to post a jubilant celebratory notice of the repeal of Arizona 's gun laws
(awaiting only the Governor's signature on the statute).
Its NOT for me; I 'm not going back there to live;
its too scorching HOT, but the FREEDOM thrills me, from afar.

I remember being afraid to go to Phoenix, back in the early eighties, all those people packing guns, and what I heard were all the roads around the city with bars/et al with a lot of gun folk and booze, well lit.

I admit my then view was also a page of fear of the unknown. Still, many years later, I am still more comfortable around people talking, discussing, arguing, enraged even.. if none have guns on their belts.

I think you paint armageddon, David.

ossobuco wrote:
This seems so strong that there appears no room left for compassion for a rejected small child,
To practice compassion is WONDERFUL, from a position of personal safety. Torrey n Nancy were not safe.

To practice compassion within a zone of danger, is irresponsible.

The zone of danger, if there is one, is that the child has been tossed again, with what I take as no recourse to advice or care.

ossobuco wrote:
or any understanding that the child had a human right to receive care
if indeed he has psychological or neurological disturbance.
Maybe he 'll get that now.
Whether it works, remains to be seen.

Less chance now, after this complete jerk off.





David
[/quote]
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 05:01 pm
@Linkat,
That is a good article, thanks for the link!

You know, the one good thing that might come out of this mess is that it will bring attention to some important issues and make people considering adoption take a second, hard look.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:09 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Someone has sold the idea that foster kids = bad, damaged kids while overseas orphans = good kids.

I think we're being lied to.
The Russians dont want their orphans, I have heard that our older ones are almost impossible to adopt out. The grass is greener on the other side? THe do gooder rating goes up the further away you go to get a kid? Kids gain more value when they are from a different land? Familiarity breeds contempt?

IDK, I dont get it.
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
I'll give you 40,000 reasons and they're all called money.

There isn't any money to be made when people adopt from foster care but there is a lot of money in overseas adoption.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:22 pm
@boomerang,
quite right.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/04/2024 at 12:20:52