17
   

ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:53 am
@boomerang,
Russia has lately shown more appreciation of the deleterious effects of institutionalizing young children. They have made a push to have children removed from their orphanages and placed in foster homes in Russia.

This move was spurred by the incidents of Russian children who have been abused or killed by their American adoptive parents. However, this policy could also have another beneficial effect. If these children, particularly the older children, were placed in foster care prior to adoption, some of the more severe behavioral and emotional problems these children might have might surface in the foster care setting, where they might not have been so apparent in the institutional setting. Then a potential adoptive parent, from Russia, or America, would have considerably more information about the child's problems.

Because foster care is so much more expensive, and difficult, than placing children in institutions, it probably won't become a wide-spread practice in Russia. An alternative would be to place children in small group home settings which would also be preferable to large orphanages.

Unfortunately, many of the problems these adopted children have, were not produced by the bad effects of institutional life, these children had these problems prior to being placed in orphanages, due to the mother's use of alcohol or drugs while pregnant, or to abuse or neglect by the biological mother. Some of these pre-existing problems might not surface or be very apparent in an institutional setting, but they might become very evident when a child is again placed in a family situation, such as a foster home, or adoptive home. That's why adopting a child from a Russian foster home would give a potential American or Russian parent a much better idea of the child's difficulties.

Many of the children in the U.S. in foster care, or other placements, likely have the same sorts of problems the Russian children might have, because they are removed from their biological mothers for much the same reasons as the Russian children. But, in foster care in the U.S., the children with the most severe emotional and behavioral problems would not likely be placed for adoption. Either they would continue to live in therapeutic foster homes, or be sent to residential treatment facilities. If Russia instituted wide scale foster placements, they would also be able to recognize the most severe emotional and behavioral problems, and could then weed those children out of the available adoption pool. Sadly, some older children are so seriously disturbed, they may not be safely manageable outside of an institutional setting.

There will always be Americans who prefer to adopt from outside the U.S. for one reason or another, and they should be aware of the potential risks and problems in doing so. Fortunately, most foreign adoptions turn out just fine. You only hear about the horror stories, all the good outcomes just don't make the news.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 03:40 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Because foster care is so much more expensive, and difficult, than placing children in institutions, it probably won't become a wide-spread practice in Russia. An alternative would be to place children in small group home settings which would also be preferable to large orphanages.


Are you just saying this for the situation in Russia or generally?

Homes are here, in Germany, the most expensive, followed by groups. Foster care is a lot cheaper, and adoption the cheapest alternative.
(That's for those, who pay it = the district's/town's youth department = the tax payer.)
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 06:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, I generally do feel that a family type setting, like a foster home, is much better for a child than living in a large institution, like an orphanage. A small group home would be the next best alternative to an orphanage. I feel that way about the children in Russia and children anywhere in the world. I am thinking about the welfare of the child, not the welfare of the taxpayer.

Children need a great deal of attention. And, the younger the child, the more attention they need--newborns need round the clock care and attention. Institutional settings generally do not have a high enough staff ratio to provide the kind of care and attention these babies need, and it's hard for them to provide individualized attention as the child grows older. They don't offer consistent "mothering"--the caretakers may continually change--and they may not satisfy the child's needs for physical contact and affection. They also don't act as role models for the child in the same way parents would. Methods of discipline might be too uniform, and not appropriate for individual children. In a foster home, the child's needs might be better met because they are not one person in a huge group. A small group home would be the next best thing.

I do think it might be cheaper (for the government) to warehouse children in large orphanages than to utilize foster homes or small group homes. Foster parents have to be paid, and foster home placements have to be monitored, at least in the U.S.. The government still has to provide funds for the child's clothing and food in foster care, you still need to provide medical and dental care. And you need a constant supply of decent, responsible foster parents to keep that system going, so you have administrative costs. Many people here take in one or more foster children simply as a way of helping to support themselves. Some foster homes are not good, but many are.

In the U.S., the thrust is to try to keep the child with the biological parent, if at all possible, and they will initiate interventions and try to provide parental supports to make that possible. Removing the child from the biological parent is a last resort. Unfortunately, that approach sometimes results in severe abuse or death of a child. If they have to remove the child, the first choice for placement is foster care. If they can, they arrange placement with a relative in a kinship foster home. For children with emotional or behavioral problems, they try to find therapeutic foster homes. There is pretty general agreement that an institutional setting is not the best place to raise the average child. The larger group homes are very institutional in their structure, and it is generally older children who are placed in such facilities.

Apparently in Russia, because of the high demand for adoptive children from their orphanages, the notion of foster care was less forcefully promoted than it is in the U.S.. They weren't trying to keep these children in Russia. Now that they have begun having some very serious problems, at least with adoptions by Americans, they are apparently trying to get more children into foster care in Russia.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 08:55 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Because foster care is so much more expensive, and difficult, than placing children in institutions, it probably won't become a wide-spread practice in Russia. An alternative would be to place children in small group home settings which would also be preferable to large orphanages.


Foster care in most countries is EXPONENTIALLY cheaper.

Why do you say it is more expensive? IS it more expensive in the US?


As for more difficult, do you know why that might be so in Russia? It takes a lot of work and support if done properly, but is certainly not more expensive.

Are you saying Russia has tended towards institutions for children?

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 09:59 pm
@dlowan,
Russia has always tended toward institutions for children. They never claimed otherwise. They are now trying to promote foster homes, to try to keep more of these children in Russia.

The Russian boy celebrated his 8th birthday in a Moscow hospital
http://abcnews.go.com/International/returned-russian-adoptee-artyom-saveliev-celebrates-8th-birthday/story?id=10393446

He is expected to go into a foster home next week. After all this commotion, they really could not put him back into an orphanage. I hope that he will remain in a stable home situation now. He will retain his U.S. citizenship.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:15 pm
@firefly,
I find myself back and forth on presentations or arguments here. Mostly I'm nuts about what happens for the boy.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:28 pm
@firefly,
So, they've not really had a foster system?

I am off having a look at the situation.

Interesting stat given:

Russia close second to U.S. in child porn
Posted in: Child protection at 23/03/2010 00:40

Russia is second only to the United States in the production of Internet child pornography, a Russian children's rights advocate says.

"We need to combat the wave of crime that is polluting our cyberspace on the Internet today," Russian ombudsman for children's rights Pavel Astakhov said, RIA Novosti reported Monday. "We need to use advanced technology and international cooperation."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/22/Russia-close-second-to-US-in-child-porn/UPI-85401269299341/
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:31 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Russia has always tended toward institutions for children. They never claimed otherwise. They are now trying to promote foster homes, to try to keep more of these children in Russia.

The Russian boy celebrated his 8th birthday in a Moscow hospital
http://abcnews.go.com/International/returned-russian-adoptee-artyom-saveliev-celebrates-8th-birthday/story?id=10393446

He is expected to go into a foster home next week. After all this commotion, they really could not put him back into an orphanage. I hope that he will remain in a stable home situation now. He will retain his U.S. citizenship.




I wasn't saying they HAD claimed otherwise, I was just interested. Are you from Russia, you seem to know a lot?

I am interested to know what data you have re foster costing more than institutions in Russia, though.

Is that something you know, or was it just an assumption.

If institutional care in Russia IS cheaper than foster care, the kids must be in awful places.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:56 pm
@dlowan,
Here is fairly recent info about the Ukraine, from an article that proposes a Marshall Plan for the Ukraine

Quote:
Foster care and adoption are relatively rare in Ukraine, although public education programs are underway to promote these options. For the interim, there is great need for family-type small group homes. Small group homes should consist of small enough groups of children to approximate a more intimate, supportive family-type environment. According to Every Child’s research, the few small group homes that already exist have about twenty children per home. Having worked in a group home in the US, I believe that is too many children for one setting. Ten should be the maximum number, with full-time childcare workers or foster parents in each home. Facilities or land might be provided by local governments, making use of some of the larger vacant buildings in most cities in Ukraine. Otherwise, it is necessary to build new homes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
There are at this time, for example, numerous institutions across Ukraine where children die on a daily basis from little more than lack of knowledge about how to help them. The actual cost of helping them immediately is nothing more than one-day workshops for existing staff, to demonstrate basic, simple medical interventions common in the West. These institutions are generally closed to the outside world, difficult to access due to imposed secrecy, and are mostly in very rural areas where even the closest neighbors have no idea of the reality of these facilities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care for children in new family type homes will be about the same is in existing orphanages. New homes are a one-time cost " a cost insignificant in comparison with giving each child a family type of home environment.

There is no substitute for a loving family environment for growing children. Existing state care institutions do not and cannot possibly provide this " despite occasional, lingering claims that state care is the best care for children. This attitude is a holdover from Soviet times when the state was idealized as the best possible caretaker for all, including children. Stark reality does not support that notion.
http://people-centered.org/Projects/Ukraine/Marshall_Plan.aspx


They spend next to nothing on the children in institutions

Quote:
Every Child estimates a state cost of current equivalent of 575 hrivnia, or about $115, per child per month.


And they don't even have good statistics on how many children are in orphanages and state institutions in the Ukraine.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:05 pm
@firefly,
If that's what they are spending, no wonder the poor kids are highly disturbed.

What a sad situation...and I know Russia is highly problematic economically, so I suppose there is little spare cash to do a lot.

Mind you, like all our countries, the actual and social cost if they do not do better is immense down the track.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:11 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
Due to economic and general health conditions, more and more children are being put up for adoption. Thousands of abandoned children is nothing unique to Russia, though. The problem centers around the substandard conditions of most of Russia's orphanages and other institutions where these unwanted children live. The main culprit is, once again, money. As in the U.S., you will find unscrupulous people whose business it is to profit from the misfortunes of these children. Much of the physical, mental and emotional disabilities suffered by Russian orphans could be avoided if there was adequate funding for orphanage upkeep, staffing, food, medical care and some of the comforts of life.

Regardless of what percentage of Russian adoptions fail, the fact still remains that an overwhelming percentage of Russia's children are leaving their homeland. There will always be orphans in the world; this is something we will never be able to totally do away with. However, instead of exporting so many, why not help Russia improve its orphanages or, better yet, the economic circumstances of parents so that they can keep their children in Russia and with their families. This is not a simple problem by far. But, it is one which receives little active attention.
http://www.russianlife.com/article.cfm?Number=149



This abstract is from a 2005 study--
Quote:
Abstract
This article describes a unique study that attempts to promote positive social-emotional relationships and attachment between caregivers and children in orphanages in St. Petersburg, Russia. The children who reside in these orphanages are typically between birth and 48 months of age; approximately 50% are diagnosed with disabilities, and approximately 60% leave through foreign adoption. Initially, their orphanage caregivers showed a high level of current anxiety and depression and were detached from and communicated little with the children. Likewise, during baseline observations, the children demonstrated poor attachment behaviors such as indiscriminant friendliness, lack of eye contact with adults, aggression, and impulsive behavior. Two interventions were used in a quasiexperimental design: (a) training of caregivers to promote warm, responsive caregiving and (b) staffing and structural alterations to support relationship building, especially increasing the consistency of caregivers. The methodology required that both the training and staffing interventions be provided to one orphanage, only the training to a second, and neither to a third. (At any one time, ns = 80-120 in each condition.) Initial informal observations reveal positive behaviors for both the caregivers and the children, such as increased two-way conversations, animated and enthusiastic emotional responses, and positive social and language interactions. Early data analyses show an increase in the consistency and stability of caregivers and increased scores for caregivers on every subscale of the HOME Scales. Children showed improvements in physical growth, cognition, language, motor, personal-social, and affect, with children having severe disabilities improving the most. The implications of these findings suggest that training staff with modest educational backgrounds and structural changes are effective, can increase socially responsive caregiving behaviors, and improves social interactions of children, at least temporarily. ©2005 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health.


I wonder how much staff training was actually implemented on a wide spread basis on the basis of the results of that study?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 01:10 am
@firefly,
He certainly looks happier than he did when he got off the plane. Poor child, he has had a rotten life. I wonder if he understands why he is back in Russia, and why people are making such a fuss about him.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01617/Savelyev_1617831c.jpg
Artyom Savelyev in a children's hospital in Moscow celebrating his eighth birthday Photo: EPA
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:56 am
@firefly,
Happy Birthday Artyom!

Thanks for posting that picture firefly - it reminds me that where there's life there's hope.
And that doesn't mean that I'm downplaying the deeply ingrained problems these children exhibit - but the fact remains they are children first- with or without problems.
Maybe Artyom's purpose in this whole thing is to put a face to this issue because that's a real kid with a real smile- reading about him you'd think he'd have had dead and flat eyes- there's real light in those eyes and something to salvage.
God bless him - I hope he's given a real chance in life now.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 03:54 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
He certainly looks happier than he did when he got off the plane.
Poor child, he has had a rotten life. I wonder if he understands why he is back in Russia,
and why people are making such a fuss about him.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01617/Savelyev_1617831c.jpg
Artyom Savelyev in a children's hospital in Moscow celebrating his eighth birthday Photo: EPA
Is he imitating a moose ?
He has indeed had a ruff life.
I join in your sympathy for him,
but I include the Hansen girls in my sympathy and good will
for all that thay went thru; poor girls.





David
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 04:34 am
We have over the years seen pictures and heard about how bad orphanages were/are in Russia and say Rumania.
We have made mistakes too in helping.
Several years ago a friend of mine was involved in a private collection of things for children in an Eastblock country. My suggestion to also send things for the caretakers and their children to avoid jalousy was rejected with the argument they would just sell the things to get food for their families.
If the caretakers were so poor and they already did not see the orphans as real human beings of course by only giving to the orphans would make the caretakers feel jalous or whatever.
Many caretakers did what they could under the misreable circumstances, working hard and earning next to nothing.
I certainly was for helping the orphans, but I thought we should have shown a certain amount of respect for the caretakers and their families too.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 06:01 am
@firefly,
I'm, of course, for smaller units and families, too.

The large homes (here) might have some better environment (here I mean, the various opportunities within the home, schools, sports, training/work etc) but the social environment certainly is better in families and groups.

Because children need a lot of attraction, you'll have to employ a lot of staff; and since such homes offer a lot of opportunities, a lot of specialised staff in various fields.

This is one of the reasons why larger homes are more expensive.

Smaller units use a lot more what already is to be found in the community, like do families.

What is done here most, is to let small groups ( 4 to 6) live as a family, with a small group (= usually only one staff present) of professionals.
Specialised personal is for all of a couple of groups.

Which is quite similar to how foster parents/adopters get their help (there's, of course, no professional living in the families).

The SOS-children villages (who have quite some village in Russia) have the principle, to form 'constant' families, all on one larger ground, but acting independently.

-------------

Since quite a lot of serious crimes happened here in Germany, when children were left with their biological parents, now the trend is again to take those children in homes/groups/families. (Had been different some years ago but due to "public opinion" ....)

The trouble is that you don't find as many foster families as needed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 06:07 am
@saab,
Today, there are four Russian SOS Children's Villages, two more are in construction, and SOS Russia has started several other projects to help children in need (smal groups, units for older youth, social centres etc).

All the German certified adoption associations (all charities) run own homes in Russia as well or, at least, support some of their local partners.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 06:33 am
@Walter Hinteler,
There is a big difference in SOS Children´s Villages or German certified adoption association which runs own homes in Russia and some private do-gooders who found one orphanage where they wanted to help kids with cloth and toys - and not thinking about the psychological aspect of carers and kids. These one time or twice coming with a truck of things and not really control and help the rest of the year - that is what I was against.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 11:41 am
@aidan,
Quote:
Maybe Artyom's purpose in this whole thing is to put a face to this issue because that's a real kid with a real smile- reading about him you'd think he'd have had dead and flat eyes- there's real light in those eyes and something to salvage.


aidan, that's why I posted his picture in this thread. I think it's important to remember that we are talking about this particular, very real, little boy. And he does put a face on the entire issue of foreign adoptions, especially those from Russia.

We don't know what the Russian government did or did not do to help Artyom's biological mother, and it was with his mother that his problems began. Would it have been possible to put Artyom in temporary foster care and place Artyom's mother in alcohol rehab, help her achieve sobriety, teach her parenting skills, and return her child to her? Artyom is not an orphan. If those things had been done, it might have been possible to avoid institutionalization of this child in the first place. It might have been possible to spare him the trauma of separating from his biological mother, and children can and do bond with even bad mothers. It might have rehabilitated his mother so that he could be reunited with her, which would have spared him years in an orphanage and the trauma and disruption and rejection that he just went through with his adoptive American mother. It is unlikely that Russia did any of these things. It is more likely that they simply removed him from his alcoholic mother's care, for reasons of neglect and abuse, and dumped him in an orphanage.

Let's assume that Artyom's mother drank during her pregnancy. What effect might this have had on Artyom?

Quote:

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Alcohol (wine, beer, or liquor) is the leading known preventable cause of mental and physical birth defects in the United States.

When a woman drinks alcohol during pregnancy, she risks giving birth to a child who will pay the price " in mental and physical deficiencies " for his or her entire life.

Yet many pregnant women do drink alcohol. It's estimated that each year in the United States, 1 in every 750 infants is born with a pattern of physical, developmental, and functional problems referred to as fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), while another 40,000 are born with fetal alcohol effects (FAE).

Signs and Symptoms
If you adopted a child or consumed alcohol during pregnancy and are concerned that your child may have FAS, watch for characteristics of the syndrome, which include:

•low birth weight
•small head circumference
•failure to thrive
•developmental delay
•organ dysfunction
•facial abnormalities, including smaller eye openings, flattened cheekbones, and indistinct philtrum (an underdeveloped groove between the nose and the upper lip)
•epilepsy
•poor coordination/fine motor skills
•poor socialization skills, such as difficulty building and maintaining friendships and relating to groups
•lack of imagination or curiosity
•learning difficulties, including poor memory, inability to understand concepts such as time and money, poor language comprehension, poor problem-solving skills
•behavioral problems, including hyperactivity, inability to concentrate, social withdrawal, stubbornness, impulsiveness, and anxiety
Children with FAE display the same symptoms, but to a lesser degree.

Diagnosis and Long-Term Effects
Problems associated with FAS tend to intensify as children move into adulthood. These can include mental health problems, troubles with the law, and the inability to live independently.

Kids with FAE are frequently undiagnosed. This also applies to those with alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder (ARND), a recently recognized category of prenatal damage that refers to children who exhibit only the behavioral and emotional problems of FAS/FAE without any signs of developmental delay or physical growth deficiencies.
Often, in kids with FAE or ARND, the behavior can appear as mere belligerence or stubbornness. They may score well on intelligence tests, but their behavioral deficits often interfere with their ability to succeed. Extensive education and training for the parents, health care professionals, and teachers who care for these kids are essential.

How Much Alcohol Is Too Much?
It's clear that abusing alcohol during pregnancy is dangerous, but what about the occasional drink? How much alcohol constitutes too much during pregnancy?

No evidence exists that can determine exactly how much alcohol ingestion will produce birth defects. Individual women process alcohol differently. Other factors vary the results, too, such as the age of the mother, the timing and regularity of the alcohol ingestion, and whether the mother has eaten any food while drinking.

Although full-blown FAS is the result of chronic alcohol use during pregnancy, FAE and ARND may occur with only occasional or binge drinking.

Because alcohol easily passes the placental barrier and the fetus is less equipped to eliminate alcohol than its mother, the fetus tends to receive a high concentration of alcohol, which lingers longer than it would in the mother's system.

Mothers who drink during the first trimester of pregnancy have kids with the most severe problems because that is when the brain is developing. The connections in the baby's brain don't get made properly when alcohol is present. Of course, in the early months, many women don't even know they're pregnant.

It's important for women who are thinking about becoming pregnant to adopt healthy behaviors before they get pregnant.

Women who abstain from alcohol in early pregnancy may feel comfortable drinking in the final months. But some of the most complex developmental stages in the brain occur in the second and third trimesters, a time when the nervous system can be greatly affected by alcohol. Even moderate alcohol intake, and especially periodic binge drinking, can seriously damage a developing nervous system.

Prevention Is the Key
FAS can be completely prevented by not drinking any alcohol during pregnancy.

Reviewed by: Linda Nicholson, MS, MC
Date reviewed: June 2008
http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html


Let's assume that, at the least, Artyom may suffer from FAE, a milder form of FAS. While this condition is not reversible, could the child have been helped at the time he was placed in the orphanage (which seems to have been about three or four years ago)?

Quote:
These protective factors have been found to benefit people who have fetal alcohol spectrum disorders:


Early Diagnosis
Children who are diagnosed early have more positive outcomes that those who are not. The earlier a FAS child is placed in appropriate educational classes and given essential social services, the more improved the prognosis.
Early diagnosis also helps family members and teachers understand the reactions and behavior of the FAS child, which can differ widely from other children in the same situations.


Special Education and Social Services
Research has found that fetal alcohol syndrome children who receive special education designed for their specific needs and learning ability are more likely to achieve their developmental and educational potential. Because FAS children can exhibit a wide range of severity of symptoms, individualized educational programs are important.
It is also helpful if FAS children and their family receive social services -- such as respite care, stress management training or behavioral management training -- have more positive outcomes compared with families who do not receive those kinds of services.


Nurturing Environment
All children benefit from a loving, nurturing and stable home life. But children with fetal alcohol syndrome have been found to be more sensitive to disruptions, transient lifestyles and harmful relationships. To prevent the secondary conditions associated with FAS, children who have fetal alcohol syndrome need support from family and the community.

Absence of Violence
Violence in the lives of children with fetal alcohol syndrome can have significant influence on their likelihood of developing behavior, legal and living problems later in life. Studies have found that FAS children who live in stable and non-abusive homes are much less likely to develop secondary conditions.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/fas/a/fas_treatment.htm


I think it is safe to say that Artyom did not receive early diagnosis--the orphanage claimed he had no medical problems. Special education? This child may have received no education. Some news reports said he is unable to write. Did he have a nuturing environment? Not with his biological mother, and how nuturing could the orphanage environment have been ? How nuturing was the adoptive mother who just rejected him? In addition, he suffered the significant disruption of being taken from his mother and placed in the orphanage. Then, when he was settled into the orphanage, his life was disrupted by the adoption. His life has just been disrupted again, by his return to Moscow.

So, all of the factors and interventions, which could have minimized the impact of FAS/FAE on Artyom's life were absent from his living situation. And, instead, the conditions of his life were of the sort to maximize his difficulties--including creating cognitive, behavioral, social, and psychological problems for him.

The problems Artyom likely has, simply based on his past life experiences, could have been addressed at any point, and the probability is they were simply ignored--after all, the Russians claim he has no problems at all. And his adoptive mother acted as though he had no problems, by failing to get him any professional help. His biological mother may have neglected and abused him, but so did the orphanage, and so did his adoptive mother. This child has been badly victimized by adults his entire life. And, when he finally found a new home, the adoptive mother kicked him out, apparently considering him hopeless after only 6 months. Hopeless? Too much bother? Perhaps this child has reason to kick, and bite, and scream. Has he any reason to trust the adults around him, or to believe they will protect and defend him? He can only act with primitive survival skills, in self defense. Learning to trust may be a hard process for him, but there is no reason to believe he cannot learn. There is hope for Artyom. Just take another look at his picture.

Also, take another look at the abstract I posted a few posts back. A very simple intervention improved the behaviors of both the caretakers and the children in that Russian orphanage. And the children with the most problems improved the most. That's a very dramatic finding. There is hope in these orphanages if they'd just institute simple training programs for the staff. Are they doing this sort of thing now? Probably not.

For Artyom there is hope. He has the whole world rooting for him now. It was important to put a face on this problem. Now that we have seen the face, let us hope this episode has changed his life for the better, and perhaps will change the lives of other children as well.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:21 am
@firefly,
The little guy problems or lack of same for that matter is not the issue in my mind.

The issue is that the woman who went half way around the world to adopted him made no efforts to get help for him and the fools who defend this lack of actions here on this thread.

All we can do is guess at what if any problems the boy had but we know for sure what the sub-human adopted mother problems are starting with a lack of a heart.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 06:51:50