ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

@BillRM,

I agree Bill. When you sign on to be a parent, you sign on for the duration. You might not have chosen to or willingly adopted a quadripalegic child because you might not have wanted to deal with those problems, but every parent knows or should be aware of the fact that you might be driving tomorrow and get in an accident and your child might be paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of his or her life- and you will be expected to parent that quadripalegic child for the rest of his or her life- unless you're gonna be a dirtbag and abandon the kid in the hospital.
It's the same concept.

At this point, how can anyone be surprised that a child who has spent any time in an orphanage in Russia might exhibit attachment disorder?! And especially someone who has gone to that orphanage and seen the reality?
How can anyone be surprised that the biological mother of one of these children may have drunk alcohol during her pregnancy and that the child may have fetal alcohol syndrome?

Could anyone seriously adopt one of these kids thinking that these were children who were born of college girls who made a mistake one night and then decided to go through with the pregnancy, lovingly taking care of themselves and the developing fetus and unselfishly handing these children over to be loved, swaddled, coddled, appropriately stimulated educationally and emotionally catered to in an eastern european orphanage until the fairy tale is made complete by the appropriate American parent walking through the door and setting eyes on some perfect child, she takes home to live with her in happily ever after?

Give me a break. This woman is the sort of woman, who if her kid fell off his bike and had a closed head injury and started acting in ways that she couldn't understand or didn't want to handle would say, 'Hell, this is not what I signed up for,' and she'd put him in an institution.

No, I can't understand that she was at all surprised that this little boy might have physical, emotional and/or learning issues.
And I can't understand what she did.

But I do think that one positive thing that's come out of it (aside from Artyom being removed from such a person's care and given a chance for a real mother and family), is that no one ever again will be able to plead ignorance and have the nerve to say that they never expected the issues they were confronted with as an excuse to dump a child who didn't live up to their expectations.

1 Reply

@aidan,

A know someone very well, who adopted an infant girl from their own country here in Europe. It was not an open adoption.
Everything worked out so well and she was/is a great pleasure to her parents.
When she was 18 her parents thought it would be nice to tell the case worker they had had 18 years ago how well things had been.
So the mother called and it took a couple of days till she reached the caseworker and as the caseworker knew the mother had called she called the mother.
The caseworker was rather upset as she thought the parents wanted to return this 18 year old girl. The mother reacted all confused and told she just wanted to tell how well things had worked out. The caseworker told her that it happens people want to return or at least make the adoption not legal anymore.
Just because a teenager does not behave the way the adopted parents want them too, don´t study what the parents want them to study and other rather petty things - they want to "return" a grown up child.

1 Reply

@saab,

I know there have been times in my childrens' adolescence when if I could have opted out of the game I was tempted to. And that's mostly in terms of my son, my biological child. He's given me a much harder run for my money in terms of parenting. My daughter, the child I adopted with all the question marks and 'issues' around her beginnings, I've found much easier to parent.

But I realize getting through the teen years was as much about me changing and being flexible as it was about him. I had to face facts about myself in our relationship as well as facts about my son- and it's only at that point that we could start handling issues- and as the adult in the relationship - that's my role, much moreso than it is his.

What bothers me about this woman is she wants to say, 'The problem is all with this particular kid...give me another one and I'll be fine,' instead of looking at herself and assessing her own personality characteristics and traits that might play into the failure of this scenario before she jumps headlong into the next one.

Was the next kid going to be from a Russian orphanage? Or was she going to try South America this time? Maybe Africa or a baby girl from China?

No - she needs to stop placing all the blame on the child and the Russian officials and come to the realization that if she's not willing to handle any variable that might arise in ANYONE's life - she shouldn't say that she will.

She didn't even give it much of a try this time - why would she want to step right back into another situation before the first one's even dealt with and over?
She's obviously putting too much weight on the child's role in the failure of this and not enough weight on her own.
If it'd been successful, she'd probably look at it just the opposite and say, 'Look what a good parent I was to take this kid with all these issues and make it work' instead of 'Look what a bad kid this is - I never could have made it work.'

2 Replies

@aidan,

Did u favor sending Elian Gonzalez back to cuba ?

1 Reply

@aidan,

That is the basic problem. She thinks she is perfect and the boy is all wrong.
What woud she done to a smiling new born baby, which developes cholics?
A baby who screams day and night - taken it to a doctor or placed it on the stairs where she picked it up?

1 Reply

@saab,

saab wrote:

That is the basic problem. She thinks she is perfect and the boy is all wrong.

Well, he allegedly told her that he was going to burn her to death in her home,
and then repeatedly tried to DO it. I guess she thinks that is rong.

saab wrote:

What woud she done to a smiling new born baby, which developes cholics?
A baby who screams day and night - taken it to a doctor or placed it on the stairs where she picked it up?

I have a solution to that, from my problem with hearing a screaming kid on a plane
years ago, all the way from NY to Florida, to wit: I carry ear protection!!! Its great!
the same protection that I wear at gunnery ranges,
which I 've augmented with interior cotton, for better insulation; its like super-earmuffs.
Its comfortable, too for long-term wear.

She can put that on and then painlessly, effortlessly respect
his First Amendment rights all over the place !!!

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Did u favor sending Elian Gonzalez back to cuba ?

I think I did, yes, because if I remember correctly his biological father was still alive, had not relinquished his parental rights and wanted his son to live with him.
Do you ask about Elian because you see some sort of similarity between these two cases?

In terms of Artyom setting fires in this woman's house- is there any proof at all that that actually happened?

Has this woman stepped forward yet to elaborate on and/or show proof of any of the claims she's made against this little boy and his alleged behaviors?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

There is no proof at all that the boy was going to burn her to death. It is only what she says.
No parent would ever wear ear protection when a child is ill/sick and screaming.
Nor do they do that under other circumstance to avoid hearing a crying or screaming infant or baby.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

With all due respect you are a complete nut case as a 7 years old child can not enter into any kind of a contract for example to be a loving son as you had stated in past posts!

Second, no threat of any kind by a 7 years old can removed the obligations of a parent to provide for such a child.

Hell setting fires and burning down your home for that matter does not removed the obligations of a parent to seek help for his or her seven years old son. Taking steps such as removing him from the family and placing him in some very control settings where he can get help yes, casually renouncing all responsibility in the manner she did once more hell no.

All obligations between a young child and a parent only run in one direction.

Now the only subject that remain is does an adopted parent even a newly adopted parent have the same legal and moral obligation as a biological parent and the legal answer is yes indeed.

As a human being, if the woman had move heaven and hell to find the child help and she still ended up with a smoking ruin of a home then I might had some feelings and understanding for her actions even if it is not legally or even morally correct but under the situation as given she is a sub-human.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

This child did not set any fires. According to the grandmother, he threatened to burn the house down. And we don't know that he actually made such a threat, or if he did, that he made the threat more than once. An angry child can say a great many things--that doesn't mean they will act on them. Setting fires was not mentioned in the letter the mother sent to the Russians with the boy. That letter is deliberately vague. It doesn't mention anything he did.

According to the grandmother, the "last straw" was when Artyom picked up a statue and tried to hit his aunt with it. This occurred when the aunt was trying to home school him in math, and was trying to get him to correct his work. If that was the case, the child's behavior was provoked by someone who was possibly insensitive to this child' needs and his limitations. If Artyom has a learning disability (which is very possible), he might be expected to have problems with math, as well as a low frustration tolerance. Pushing him too far, or putting too much pressure on him, which the aunt might have done, would provoke an eruption from the child. She would be making him frustrated and angry, and he'd want to get her to stop. Picking up an object, and threatening her, might have been the only way he could express himself. These are also the reasons the child should not have been home schooled. They should have enrolled him in school and let experienced educators address his special needs.

The only other thing the grandmother said was that he would spit and scream. When did he do these things? When he wanted a toy or video game he couldn't have. Well, I see and hear children--"normal" children-- in stores doing things like that all the time. And Artyom was a very deprived child, whose desire to have these things might have been very strong. He wasn't used to having his own toys in an orphanage, and he wasn't used to having a parent say, "No". So, screaming and spitting when he is denied something doesn't seem all that strange. He needs to learn a lot of new social behaviors, and to develop a higher frustration tolerance, and better impulse control. It's the parent's job to help him do that.

As I've said in my other posts, I'm not prepared to believe what the grandmother has said about the child--not yet anyway. Even if I did believe her, she is not describing the kinds of problems that really seriously disturbed Russian children have shown--there is only a very superficial similarity to those sorts of behaviors. The behavior the grandmother reports may well have been provoked, or caused, by how this family was treating the child. They may not have known what they were doing. They shouldn't have expected Artyom to react like an average 7 year old--he hasn't had an average life--and they shouldn't have treated him like an average 7 year old because he needs much more special, and considerate, and careful treatment than the average 7 year old, because his life has been filled with trauma and disruption.

But, no matter what the child did, this family was wrong. They didn't get him any help for the problems they say he had. And they ultimately rejected him in an emotionally brutal manner.

Parents are obligated to care for, and protect, their children--no matter what problems those children display, and regardless of whether the children are biological or adopted. These people were not prepared to accept a child with special needs, and any older adopted child is likely to have special needs, no matter where he is adopted from. They could have had these same problems with an older American child who might have been in foster care or an institution prior to adoption. This isn't just unique to Russia. The Hansens weren't prepared to deal with a child with any emotional issues or special needs--their mistake was adopting an older child. The fault is with them, not the child, and not really with the Russians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David, you wisely know you are not suited to be a parent. But you should try to be objective about the nature of parental responsibilities for those who are parents.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

This child did not set any fires. According to the grandmother, he threatened to burn the house down.
And we don't know that he actually made such a threat, or if he did, that he made the threat more than once.

I read somewhere that he threatened arson several times,
that he drew at least 1 picture of his threat being executed,
and that he set some fires.
Neither u nor I were there looking.

firefly wrote:

An angry child can say a great many things--that doesn't mean they will act on them.

That is a very serious matter -- one of life and death-- and it cannot responsibly
be ignored, with hopes for the best; too dangerous.

firefly wrote:

Setting fires was not mentioned in the letter the mother sent to
the Russians with the boy. That letter is deliberately vague.
It doesn't mention anything he did.

Whatever happened, happened, regardless of what was in one individual letter.
When someone writes a letter, it does not necessarily
include everything that it coud possibly include.
People don 't always do everything perfectly.

firefly wrote:

According to the grandmother, the "last straw" was when Artyom picked up a statue and tried to hit his aunt with it. This occurred when the aunt was trying to home school him in math, and was trying to get him to correct his work. If that was the case, the child's behavior was provoked by someone who was possibly insensitive to this child' needs and his limitations. If Artyom has a learning disability (which is very possible), he might be expected to have problems with math, as well as a low frustration tolerance. Pushing him too far, or putting too much pressure on him, which the aunt might have done, would provoke an eruption from the child. She would be making him frustrated and angry, and he'd want to get her to stop. Picking up an object, and threatening her, might have been the only way he could express himself. These are also the reasons the child should not have been home schooled. They should have enrolled him in school and let experienced educators address his special needs.

Possibly, u may be right about those matters; I dunno.
It depends on the degree of his violence.
Some children have fatally bashed their parents while asleep, with blunt objects.

firefly wrote:

The only other thing the grandmother said was that he would spit and scream. When did he do these things?
When he wanted a toy or video game he couldn't have.
Well, I see and hear children--"normal" children-- in stores doing things like that all the time.

Yes; I think so.

firefly wrote:

And Artyom was a very deprived child,

Very. I did not mean to deny that he had a very sad case.

firefly wrote:

whose desire to have these things might have been very strong.

Yes.

firefly wrote:

He wasn't used to having his own toys in an orphanage, and he wasn't used to having a parent say, "No". So, screaming and spitting when he is denied something doesn't seem all that strange. He needs to learn a lot of new social behaviors, and to develop a higher frustration tolerance, and better impulse control. It's the parent's job to help him do that.

I can only think of TELLING him to stop doing that.
I 've never needed to enforce a decision.

firefly wrote:

As I've said in my other posts, I'm not prepared to believe what the grandmother has said about the child--not yet anyway. Even if I did believe her, she is not describing the kinds of problems that really seriously disturbed Russian children have shown--there is only a very superficial similarity to those sorts of behaviors. The behavior the grandmother reports may well have been provoked, or caused, by how this family was treating the child. They may not have known what they were doing. They shouldn't have expected Artyom to react like an average 7 year old--he hasn't had an average life--and they shouldn't have treated him like an average 7 year old because he needs much more special, and considerate, and careful treatment than the average 7 year old, because his life has been filled with trauma and disruption.

But, no matter what the child did, this family was wrong. They didn't get him any help for the problems they say he had. And they ultimately rejected him in an emotionally brutal manner.

Parents are obligated to care for, and protect, their children--no matter what problems those children display,
and regardless of whether the children are biological or adopted.

My sense of morality is that if a child is an aggressor intentionally, the first to break the peace
by attacking a parent, then he cannot morally expect
the victim of his abuse to continue to owe him care.

Is it fair or reasonable
to force someone to take care of someone who is trying to kill him or her ?

firefly wrote:

These people were not prepared to accept a child with special needs, and any older adopted child is likely to have special needs, no matter where he is adopted from. They could have had these same problems with an older American child who might have been in foster care or an institution prior to adoption. This isn't just unique to Russia. The Hansens weren't prepared to deal with a child with any emotional issues or special needs--their mistake was adopting an older child. The fault is with them, not the child, and not really with the Russians.

Agreed; except that I 'm not so sure about the innocence of the Russians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

firefly wrote:

David, you wisely know you are not suited to be a parent.

I don 't wish to be a parent and I 'm very pleased that I have no children, but I have had some girls live with me
who did have children. I was always kind to them, pleasant, friendly, polite and respectful. I was never severe
with those children. When one of them accidentally broke my property, I did not rise to anger; I ignored it.
I acted similarly with children of girlfriends who did not live with me.

I brought them presents at Christmas time, birthdays and for no reason; surprize:
leather wallets stuffed with cash, or sometimes toys. I am not anti-child.

There have been occasions (when my opinion was asked), that I defended children from their parents.
When I was around 14, I took in my friend who was a few months younger, and briefly let him stay
in my house, in my private apartment; he had been locked out of his house for a short time.

Its only that I champion the right of anyone and everyone
to defend himself from threats of violence from anyone
including from either parents or from children against parents.

firefly wrote:

But you should try to be objective about the nature of parental responsibilities for those who are parents.

Well, I make an effort to be objective and fair.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That is a very serious matter -- one of life and death-- and it cannot responsibly
be ignored, with hopes for the best; too dangerous

I am at a loss at to why you think you are supporting your case. If you accept your set of facts then the appropreate action was to get the kid in front of an expert asap. Shipping him back to Russia was a delay, one that put an airliner full of people at risk.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That is a very serious matter -- one of life and death-- and it cannot responsibly
be ignored, with hopes for the best; too dangerous.

And that what both women did not do as not seeking treatments but instead placing the child on a plane headed out of the country is not dealing with any scuh problems in a responsibly manner!!!!!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

David wrote:

That is a very serious matter -- one of life and death-- and it cannot responsibly
be ignored, with hopes for the best; too dangerous

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am at a loss at to why you think you are supporting your case.
If you accept your set of facts then the appropreate action was
to get the kid in front of an expert asap. Shipping him back to Russia was a delay,

U KNOW this? I don 't know that.

hawkeye10 wrote:

one that put an airliner full of people at risk.

I imagine that the TSA searched him, along with everyone else. Was he an exception?
Did he sneak past them, with his Molotov Cocktail ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U KNOW this? I don 't know that.

I am not going to go to the work to find out when the "mom" decided the this kid was a danger, but on April 6 she was contacting the guide and buying tickets, and the kid got to Russia April 8. What would have happened if on April 6 she had put the kid in the car, drove to child protective services, and said that she was in fear of her life and safety of her property because of this kid? You dont think that he would either have been seen that day or else been put into someone else's care?

Common sense is all I need for proof.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

David wrote:

U KNOW this? I don 't know that.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not going to go to the work to find out when the "mom" decided the this kid was a danger, but on April 6 she was contacting the guide and buying tickets, and the kid got to Russia April 8. What would have happened if on April 6 she had put the kid in the car, drove to child protective services, and said that she was in fear of her life and safety of her property because of this kid? You dont think that he would either have been seen that day or else been put into someone else's care?

I have no way of knowing.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Common sense is all I need for proof.

"Common sense" is unreliable. For centuries, it was common sense in Japan that a parent coud kill his child
if he wanted to; it was "common sense" that the sun orbited the Earth, which was the center of the Universe;
it was "common sense" that the blacks must not enter white bathrooms, except to clean, etc.
It was "common sense" that heavier than air craft coud not fly,
even tho birds do it openly, all the time.
Forgive me if I don't accept the probative value of "common sense".

David

0 Replies

Well, there it is -
Forgive me if I don't accept the probative value of "common sense".

David, from my observation over years, you are excellent at much re discourse, but you are at least a little unaware of nuances of compassion. I don't blame you for this, just notice it. I almost think the gun thing is a substitute, but I'm no psychologist. I have low quotients in some matters, we all differ.

In the world of compassion, if ever anyone needed it, but not as some kind of blanket, this kid did/does.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Well, there it is -
Forgive me if I don't accept the probative value of "common sense".

Having fun with my statement out of context ?

ossobuco wrote:

David, from my observation over years, you are excellent at much re discourse,

Thank u.

ossobuco wrote:

but you are at least a little unaware of nuances of compassion.

Sometimes, maybe. (What did I miss?)

ossobuco wrote:

I don't blame you for this,

Thank u.

ossobuco wrote:

just notice it.

OK.

ossobuco wrote:

I almost think the gun thing is a substitute, but I'm no psychologist.

Substitute for WHAT ?

ossobuco wrote:

I have low quotients in some matters, we all differ.

Yeah; even identical twins r different.

ossobuco wrote:

In the world of compassion, if ever anyone needed it, but not as some kind of blanket, this kid did/does.

Yeah; maybe it 'd cheer him up.
If he were around, at hand, I 'd not let him anywhere near
my real estate, nor let him know where any of it is,
but I 'd be nice to him. Pleasant & respectful; I 'd not begrudge him a hand full of cash,
many bills of different denominations, and if it were convenient to provide them to him,
some colored toys that appealed to his taste. One of the videos said no good for imitation guns,
so I 'd respect that, until better evidence arrrives.

David

0 Replies

You'd give him ******* dollars?

I'll back off, I think you are particularly unaware on child care.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

You'd give him ******* dollars?

I'll back off, I think you are particularly unaware on child care.

RUBLES? Sorry. I don 't know much about Russia,
except that its free now. Maybe he can exchange them in a bank ?

David

1 Reply

ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know