@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:The Big Question is whether or not
the Hansens' defense from impending arson was necessary.
David, the problem with your question is that you assume there was a threat of "impending arson" and we really don't know that is the case. Hansen did not mention any specific behaviors or examples of what she meant by violent psychopathic tendencies in that letter she wrote to the Russians. And that letter was an important statement about the boy--she wanted the Russians to void the entire adoption based on that letter. And it doesn't mention fire, or knives, or putting foreign substances in food, or trying to torture animals, in fact, it doesn't mention any conceivable violent action, or anything the child actually did. I find that very strange.
The business of fire was mentioned only
after the fury erupted, by the grandmother, in her statement to the media--when she was trying to defend her own outrageous behavior. At that point, she had to make the child sound like some kind of extreme menace, otherwise she and her daughter would look even worse.
If the Hansens did, indeed, feel threatened by this child, they should have placed him in a psychiatric hospital, or some other facility which would assure that everyone was safe--including the child--and where he could receive evaluation and treatment. Hansen is the legal parent of the boy, and that makes her options no different than those of a biological parent--you can't just discard your child and send him out of the country. He was no longer the responsibility of the Russian government, he was her child. If she wanted to surrender her parental rights, she should have instituted legal proceedings in the U.S. to do that. You can't say that her perception of a possible threat justifies what she did by sending the child back to Russia. It might justify removing the child from her home, and having him put in a hospital, or foster care, or simply an appropriate placement elsewhere, but it does not justify what she did.
This woman has extremely questionable judgment, and that's evident in her desire to adopt a second child, against the advice of the adoption agency, as well as the manner in which she disposed of her son. No doubt her poor judgment affected her parenting skills as well. So it's impossible to tell what problems the child might have had to begin with, and what problems she might have provoked. She did not seek help in managing the child, and she didn't even enroll him in school. No one, outside the family, seems to have observed the child, other than the adoption agency social worker who made a home visit in January, and noted that things were going well. Hansen made herself unavailable for the next home visit which was supposed to take place in March.
And then, out of the blue, she ships the child to Russia with a letter that says he's a violent psychopath. This story really makes no sense. These aren't the actions you expect from a mother who feels threatened by a child, something else is going on with this woman. If she ever comes out of hiding, we might get some answers, but I'm not sure we can believe her or that we'll ever find out what really went on in the house when the child was there.
One thing does seem clear, she had no feelings of love for this child. One can only wonder why she was planning a second adoption.
It is amazing that they haven't dug up a single person who knows this woman well. No neighbors, no people from her place of employment (if in fact she was really working), no people from her past. Both law enforcement and the media are trying to dig up info on this woman, and so far they have come up with nothing, except for reports that she and her mother regularly held yard sales. They haven't had a single interview with anyone who could comment on what kind of person she is. That's very strange. It does make one wonder how much they really knew about her before they let her adopt this child.
But, again, trying to adopt a second child so soon after the first, shows poor judgment. Something crazy was going on in with this woman. I'm even less inclined now to believe the 7 year old was at all dangerous. Either this is fabricated, or these women did something to the child to provoke a hostile or angry reaction from him. 