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 ?
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 ?
David, the moral burden falls on the parent--not on a 7 year old child.
It's not about whether the child thinks the parent owes him care. The law obligates the parent to care for the child.
In the first place, this child was not trying to kill them.
He did not injure anyone, nor did the grandmother claim that.
But, if this family felt threatened by the child, or simply overwhelmed by his behavior,
they had a responsibility and an obligation to get him care,
not to put him on a plane to Moscow--by himself.
They felt this child was very seriously disturbed,
and the action they took was irresponsible, given their perception of his pathology.
They did not have to keep him under their roof if they felt he was a danger.
They could have taken him to the nearest emergency room and signed him into
a pediatric psychiatric unit for observation and treatment.
Or, they simply could have made an outpatient appointment with a shrink and discussed their options.
They had plenty of time to do this.
The grandmother claimed he tried to hit the aunt with an object in February--and she characterized that action as being "the last straw". That means about a month and a half passed before they put him on the plane. Why didn't they have him seen by a professional during that month?
Why didn't they contact the adoption agency?
How scared of him could they have been if they kept the child with them during that period of time?
Putting him on that plane was not an act of self defense,
they simply chose to get rid of the child, rather than deal with his problems.
Abandoning a child that way was not a legitimate legal choice for this parent.
And, to top it off, they sent an American citizen back to Russia!
They could have contacted their adoption agency, instead of hiding from the agency,
and told them they wanted to release the child for adoption by another family.
They could have done any number of things which
would have been more responsible, and caring, and logical,
than the course of action they chose.
This woman should never have adopted an older child.
Most older children, particularly those with backgrounds like Artyom, have special needs.
Hansen was not prepared to deal with this child's special needs,
or probably any other child's special needs.
The fault is with her, not with the child, and probably not with the Russians.
She knew she was adopting a 7 year old who had been taken from an alcoholic mother
due to abuse and neglect, and who then spend several years in an orphanage.
Did she really expect this child to be problem free?
Did she really expect him to make an easy or rapid adjustment to living with her?
When problems first surfaced, why didn't she seek outside help then?
Why was she seeking to adopt a second child when she already apparently had her hands full with this one?
Nothing this woman did makes any sense. She was not prepared,
or able to function as a responsible parent. And her final action
toward this child was abusive.
Who knows what else she put this child through when he was living with her?
It may well have been the child who was acting, and reacting,
in self defense by the behaviors he displayed in that home.
I guess I was belligerent.
Really, David, compassion matters.
As I said, I 'd be compassionate to him, given the chance,
but I 'd not put it on the Hansen girls to risk their lives nor their realty.
At the same time some representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have called for a ban on international adoptions. Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov, the head of the Medical Educational Pro-Life Center “Zhizn,” called international adoptions “child trade” and said that the authorities should make the procedure for adoption by Russian citizens easier.
The idea of “local adoption” is becoming popular, but are Russians really ready to raise the orphans themselves? A poll conducted by the All Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) found that 80 percent of respondents did not want to adopt children. This data might be interpreted not only as a result of social problems and low living standards across the country, but as a reflection of general attitudes toward children. The level of violence against children in Russia is nothing short of shocking, experts say. “There were 105,800 crimes against minors registered in Russia in 2009, including 4,000 crimes committed by parents. Moreover, about 9,000 criminal cases against biological and adoptive parents and other relatives who abused children were processed last year,” said Marina Gordeeva, the chairwoman of the Foundation to Support Children in Difficult Circumstances (FSCDC), an NGO.
“More than 140,000 reports about violations of children’s rights were received by custody boards in 2009,” she continued, “including 37,000 reports signaling a threat to the life and health of children.” About 6,000 Russian children were taken away from their families because of a threat to life and health last year, FSCDC data shows.
Statistics from the Interior Ministry reveal that about two million children are beaten in Russia daily, and more than 50,000 kids leave home every year. Recent figures from UNICEF confirm the grim picture: as many as 1,900 children died due to domestic violence and 2,184 were sexually abused in the country in 2008. “The number of child sexual abuse cases has increased 18 times during the last five years in Russia,” Furley said. Many children leave home to avoid violence, only to find themselves living on the streets. “It is difficult to say how many homeless children there are in the country because official statistics don’t count them. Probably from two to five thousand homeless children live in Moscow. But we definitely know 61,333 homeless kids were registered in Russia in 2008 when they were put in hospitals.”
“The question of how to prevent violence against children in adoptive families is also very important. More than 1,000 court decisions have been cancelled during the last three years because the new parents did not perform their duties properly. Dozens of adoptions were annulled because of child abuse,” Gordeeva said. “In most causes adoptive parents were not prepared well enough to solve upbringing problems, and did not understand the personality characteristics of the adopted child.”
The FSCDC, in association with the Ministry of Public Health and Social Development, the Ministry of Education and the Interior Ministry launched a national information campaign to prevent child abuse in 2010, in order to influence the public attitude toward the problem. “We should change our priorities. We should seek to preserve biological families for children, so that kids will not need adoptive parents. Nowadays about 75,000 children become ‘social orphans’ every year, because their mothers and fathers lose custody,” Gordeeva said.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Culture+%26+Living&articleid=a1271874996
It doesn't seem as if Artyom might have fared much better
if he had been adopted by a Russian family. The situation with adoption, and child abuse, in Russia sounds horrible.
Maybe you could send those dollars to Russia in support of the orphanage there?
Why not send dollars to the little boy himself, who probably is unaware of all that is happening to him?
Dollars are good, too, from people like you and Oprah.
Suppose I could get in on this discourse about this little boy,
but it sure is uncomfortable.
I spent over 10 years in an orphanage (children's home?) in Texas, but it was a very good place and none of us were there for adoption. Actually, it became quite wealthy (for an orphanage) as, according to the home's by-laws the land it sits on (I think about 200 acres) will revert back to the family who donated the property should it discontinue caring for children. I sometimes wondered why I was there.
Today, there are many small cottages where young mothers stay (with their children) and are cared for, taught a career, and given counseling until they are "ready" to rejoin the big world. There are only about 50 children whose parents are unable to care for them for various reasons (when I was there it was 180). They are not there for adoption, either, and parents visit.
The place was extremely open with all those people from all those churches constantly parading through our dorms, watching out for us.
Lots of bedlam, nobody ever told us to "be quite." I didn't love it then, but the memories are precious and we all still gather for reunions and homecomings. I'm sure we'll be together in Heaven. This was our home, some of the girls were married there. They sent us to college, if we desired and qualified, but each had to pay back the tuition money so yet another child was able to experience higher education.
In my own home, we had an open door policy of allowing any and all our kids' friends access to whatever we had, and I've volunteered thru various charitable organizations to work with disadvantaged or troubled children. As a Big Sister, now and then one would visit our place and ride our horses, as did a family of five close-by who were expert riders but lost their horses because of a divorce.
Nobody has to look far to find someone to assist, in any way whatever, be it money, time, or just some fun.
What has happened to the churches (they are political now?) Where is the dam charity? I still send cash to this home, because they truly do care about children.
Boles Home (its name) was "wealthy" because it was supported by, and owned by, over 200 churches. Each of us had an entire church somewhere in Texas that paid for our clothing, bedding, personal items, toys, etc. The church was called the Church of Christ, we had our own school and church. I knew of no child who was EVER abused or molested and we didn't have religion forced on us.
But, we were little rascals. An uncle I never knew since age 4 sent me money to visit him when I graduated from high school. I did visit, loved them, but they wanted me to stay. I declined because I knew I would hurt them somehow. They expected me to live some corny life, be normal (whatever that is)? Did the woman who adopted the Russian child expect him to be normal?
When someone adopts a puppy from a shelter, I don't think they
are allowed to bring it back should there be a few problems.
Pemerson wrote:I dunno; Osso was vehement in her disapproval.Maybe you could send those dollars to Russia in support of the orphanage there?
Why not send dollars to the little boy himself, who probably is unaware of all that is happening to him?
Dollars are good, too, from people like you and Oprah.
I don 't know how to reach him, his address, nor do I know
whether he is the first to open mail directed to him,
nor whether his caregivers woud rob him.
Its impossible (for me) to know whether the cash woud be stolen
before he knew of its existence. In the past, I 've put $$ in childrens' hands,
some of whom (only a few) have subsequently complained to me of having
been robbed by their fathers. Most of the parents were non-larcenous and the children kept the $$$$.
I see your delimma and relate, but there are a thousand ways to assist those in need
Pemerson wrote:As the author of this thread,Suppose I could get in on this discourse about this little boy,
but it sure is uncomfortable.
I OFFICIALLY INVITE U to join this discourse.
This like a cybergold-engraved invitation!!!
Tex Star, do u remember participating in discussions with me
of the right to bear arms on Abuzz about 8 or 10 years ago?
I seem to recall that u supported my pro-freedom position. Yes?
Oh, sorry, thank you. I didn't realize you were this thread's author. I just notice when there is a new comment.
Yes, I remember you - goofy guy - I warned you to stop giving money to pretty girls. And, the guns? I may have said I wouldn't own guns but that my son does. He has quite a collection and they are in a cabinet bolted to the floor of his house's basement. He quit hunting long ago but does compete in shooting matches all over the country, is becoming a master at it. I think he should have been a detective or something. We don't tell this David what to do.
Pemerson wrote:Age? Were your parents living?I spent over 10 years in an orphanage (children's home?) in Texas, but it was a very good place and none of us were there for adoption. Actually, it became quite wealthy (for an orphanage) as, according to the home's by-laws the land it sits on (I think about 200 acres) will revert back to the family who donated the property should it discontinue caring for children. I sometimes wondered why I was there.
From age 4 1/2 to 14. My mother died of cancer at age 40. I can't imagine what my dad went through during the two years she was ill until he drove to Texas to leave us in that particular place. Their life was their small farm, and our mother was the bright one, dad was the sundance kid. There were four of us - 2 boys, 2 girls, with me the youngest. My memory holds much from those first 4 1/2 years.
Pemerson wrote:Did u deem that good or bad ?Today, there are many small cottages where young mothers stay (with their children) and are cared for, taught a career, and given counseling until they are "ready" to rejoin the big world. There are only about 50 children whose parents are unable to care for them for various reasons (when I was there it was 180). They are not there for adoption, either, and parents visit.
The place was extremely open with all those people from all those churches constantly parading through our dorms, watching out for us.
Nothing really bothered us, David. What I'm saying is there were no secrets. We just continued what we were doing, laughed about them, hardly noticed them. There were always people who would visit, sit around and talk with us, teach us things. We certainly were not accustomed to privacy.
Pemerson wrote:Lots of bedlam, nobody ever told us to "be quite." I didn't love it then, but the memories are precious and we all still gather for reunions and homecomings. I'm sure we'll be together in Heaven. This was our home, some of the girls were married there. They sent us to college, if we desired and qualified, but each had to pay back the tuition money so yet another child was able to experience higher education.
In my own home, we had an open door policy of allowing any and all our kids' friends access to whatever we had, and I've volunteered thru various charitable organizations to work with disadvantaged or troubled children. As a Big Sister, now and then one would visit our place and ride our horses, as did a family of five close-by who were expert riders but lost their horses because of a divorce.
Nobody has to look far to find someone to assist, in any way whatever, be it money, time, or just some fun.
What has happened to the churches (they are political now?) Where is the dam charity? I still send cash to this home, because they truly do care about children.
Boles Home (its name) was "wealthy" because it was supported by, and owned by, over 200 churches. Each of us had an entire church somewhere in Texas that paid for our clothing, bedding, personal items, toys, etc. The church was called the Church of Christ, we had our own school and church. I knew of no child who was EVER abused or molested and we didn't have religion forced on us.
But, we were little rascals. An uncle I never knew since age 4 sent me money to visit him when I graduated from high school. I did visit, loved them, but they wanted me to stay. I declined because I knew I would hurt them somehow. They expected me to live some corny life, be normal (whatever that is)? Did the woman who adopted the Russian child expect him to be normal?
We don 't have much information about that.
I imagine that when thay met with him in Russia,
thay found Art to be normal and pleasant, probably non-homicidal,
but that latent problems manifested several months after his arrival in America.
I don't know about that either. Those of us who were placed in this home under age 6 never had much of a problem, but some who came later were a little different - who knows what they had been through with their parents? After awhile they just joined in with the kids. A few, however, did not. They were loners, very grouchy. In hindsight, now, I think they could have been molested. But, you know, we never ever hurt one another - there was no poking fun. I still cannot purposely hurt another.
Pemerson wrote:I think that thay probably can, but that if thay do,When someone adopts a puppy from a shelter, I don't think they
are allowed to bring it back should there be a few problems.
he is likely to be murdered (unlike Art).
I volunteered few years ago with the SPCA by caring for puppies and taking them to weekly adoptions. I am a real sucker for sad kids and I won't forget the look on the face, in the eyes, of a homeless dog.
Such a good post, Pemerson.
The New York Times
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: May 3, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/world/europe/04adopt.html?hp
MOSCOW " There is nothing dreary about Orphanage No. 11.
It has rooms filled with enough dolls and trains and stuffed animals
to make any child giggly. It has speech the rapists and round-the-clock
nurses and cooks who delight in covertly slipping a treat into a
tiny hand. It has the feel of a place where love abounds.
What it does not have are many visits from potential parents.
Few of its children will ever be adopted " by Russians or foreigners.
When they reach age 7 and are too old for this institution they
will be shuttled to the next one, reflecting an entrenched system
that is much better at warehousing children " and profiting from
them " than finding them families.
The New York Times
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: May 3, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/world/europe/04adopt.html?hp
MOSCOW " There is nothing dreary about Orphanage No. 11.
It has rooms filled with enough dolls and trains and stuffed animals
to make any child giggly. It has speech the rapists and round-the-clock
nurses and cooks who delight in covertly slipping a treat into a
tiny hand. It has the feel of a place where love abounds.
What it does not have are many visits from potential parents.
Few of its children will ever be adopted " by Russians or foreigners.
When they reach age 7 and are too old for this institution they
will be shuttled to the next one, reflecting an entrenched system
that is much better at warehousing children " and profiting from
them " than finding them families.
I just found this post, thank you.
That is, indeed, a human catastrophy and the result of a former communist state. A very depressing read. I don't think state run orphanages were too great in the U.S. either, and ceased to exist mostly, around 1960 and the advent of welfare.
At Boles Home, strangely enough, we were constantly going places - camping, concerts, movies, shopping, vacationing with our parents and other families who opened their homes to us. Even though I didn't pay much attention, religion was a good experience. A gathering together every Sunday morning & evening, most nights throughout the summer on the lawn. Singing, singing.
We had a chorus that traveled throughout the state every summer, the kids staying with the families of the church members of all the Churches of Christ across Texas. I read in Michener's trilogy of his books on Texas that some guy came to Texas during its settlement stage and converted huge numbers to that religion. Even the Irish Catholics. We weren't taught any religious dogma but at some point had memorized most of the Bible as one form of punishment. Odd, yes, but most helpful when I, in my 20's, became an actress for a brief spell.
I wonder when I will stop thinking about those Russian children who, I suppose, are well aware they are there to be adopted, but by whom? The Russians can do better than that. Too bad there are no Irish there.
Thank you for that article.
Report from sky.news.com: Russia Threatens To Freeze Foreign Adoptions Unless Deal With US Can Be Reached
