ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

She needed to defend herself and her property. Self preservation is the first law of Nature.

She and her mother need to spend a lot of years in prison.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

She and her mother need to spend a lot of years in prison.

She needs the mental health establishment, not the criminal justice establishment.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

The child is not an arsonist. That's just absurd.

It is not even clear who really has problems, the child or the adoptive mother. Judging by the way the adoptive mother handled this situation, she seems to have problems. We don't even know if the things she has said about the child are true.

Quote:

Pavel Astakhov: adoptive parents abroad must bear responsibility for adopted children

Russia is suspending the adoption of children by American families. President Dmitry Medvedev said the adoption practice will have to be halted pending an inter-government agreement which would regulate the adoption procedure and guarantee appropriate control of adoptive families.
The Russian president made this announcement after a US woman, Torry-Ann Hansen, who adopted a Russian boy, Artem Saveliev, sent him back. The seven-year-old boy flew back across the ocean all by himself. He was carrying the Russian passport and a note saying his foster mother no longer wants him.

This case was the last straw on the Russian authorities and human rights campaigners. From now on, US citizens will be unable to adopt children from Russia in the absence of relevant legislation. Pavel Astakhov is the Russian president's ombudsman.

"Russia is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, he says, whereas the United States has yet to sign and ratify it. As a result, the US and Russia have no laws to rely on in adoption-related matters and require a corresponding agreement before they can resume the adoption practices".

The US authorities were quick to start an inquiry into the incident. The National Adoption Council has published a statement condemning the behavior of the American foster mother. The Council members say, however, that there are other adopted children who are quite happy. But Russia will be unable to stay calm until an inter-governmental agreement is signed which would require the adoptive parents to answer for their actions.

"Any modern society has adoption legislation, Pavel Astakhov says. Now Russia and the US have to sign an adoption treaty too, which would regulate the adoption procedures and hold the adoptive parents responsible for the children".

A child adopted by foreign parents stays a Russian citizen until he turns 18. That means the government should have the right to protect its young citizens regardless of where they live.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/10/6258802.html

The more I think about this situation, the more inclined I am to think that the adoption may not have been finalized. That would mean the child still had foster care status. Until the adoption is finalized, the foster parent can relinquish/give the child back to the adoption agency--you are not forced to keep a child you don't want if the adoption is not yet final. But, the adoptive mother still did not handle the situation in an appropriate or responsible manner.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, technically, he is not JUST a 7 year old child; he is ALSO an arsonist.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, technically, according to the definition by the U.S.
Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention
(OJDP) children under the age of 8 are no arsonists. Even if he's been older (13+), he could be technically a "crisis firesetters".

I suspect that from the perspective of the victim, Mrs. Hansen, niceties of legal definition
woud not be of foremost concern to her if she had suffered the loss of her house to a FACTUAL arsonist.

By the way, u did not quote a statute nor a court of competent jurisdicition.
It seems to ME, that the DOJ has as much authority
to render legal definitions as the shoemaker across the street.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It a damn shame we can not place you on a plane to Russia with a note pin to your rear end with a ten penny nail. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

THis thread is the only one that I can recall here at a2k where I could say
that anyone who is not with the majority would do well to have their sanity checked.

Truth be told, Hawkeye, I don 't hold u
in the abhorence, as a pariah, that almost everyone in this forum does,
but I hold your opinion in this case, in low esteem; unimpressive.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, technically, he is not JUST a 7 year old child; he is ALSO an arsonist.

It took some time since I really wanted to look all available source.

If your definition (what was it again?) of 'arsonist' is correct, it differs not only from most (if not all) definitions used by/in European criminal codes but from that by ICD as well.

'Playing with fire' - and that includes fire setting - is thought to be something within the natural development of children.

Some might know "The Dreadful Story of Pauline and the Matches" (from 1845, a still popular German children book)

Well, since that is a common problem, young children from the age of 3 are taught how to use fire correctly, in the kindergarten.

Certainly, there are some who don't learn it.

And certainly, there might be even some who later become criminal fire setters.

But it's more than doubtful that such can be stated when the child is 7. (You may trace the fire setting history of a 27 year old back to the age of 7, though. But then something went wrong with education.)

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

u
in the abhorence, as a pariah, that almost everyone in this forum does

This is a myth in my opinion, I have not found it to be true for a long time. In any case at least you are not objecting to me voicing this particular opinion, you get points for that.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, technically, he is not JUST a 7 year old child; he is ALSO an arsonist.

It took some time since I really wanted to look all available source.

If your definition (what was it again?) of 'arsonist' is correct, it differs not only from most (if not all) definitions used by/in European criminal codes but from that by ICD as well.

'Playing with fire' - and that includes fire setting - is thought to be something within the natural development of children.

Some might know "The Dreadful Story of Pauline and the Matches" (from 1845, a still popular German children book)

Well, since that is a common problem, young children from the age of 3 are taught how to use fire correctly, in the kindergarten.

Certainly, there are some who don't learn it.

And certainly, there might be even some who later become criminal fire setters.

But it's more than doubtful that such can be stated when the child is 7. (You may trace the fire setting history of a 27 year old back to the age of 7, though. But then something went wrong with education.)

Walter, I have not suggested the kid be prosecuted for arson. This thread is only consideration of the news of the day.
It is not a legal treatise. If it were, then I 'd start getting technical all over the place and quoting statutory definitions
with applicable judicial cases in point; that 's not what we r doing.

I understand that he started some fires. I have no idea of the extent of any resulting damages.

Within the context of this thread, the kid is being considered
NOT for his negligence in playing with fire inappropriately, but rather for his incendiary malice.

There is an ocean of difference between carelessness
and festering ill - will, accompanied by fires, after threats thereof.

U can see that, right ?

David

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

David wrote:

u
in the abhorence, as a pariah, that almost everyone in this forum does

hawkeye10 wrote:

This is a myth in my opinion, I have not found it to be true for a long time.
In any case at least you are not objecting to me voicing this particular opinion, you get points for that.

If u r ever cyber-tarred and feathered in this forum,
I will not join in the abuse!

(I am certain that the hysterically acrimonious venom
and vitriolic rancor that were applied to u were mythical.)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

A mother/father David or anyone else who have a duty to a child does not and is not allow to place his or her welfare above that of the child.

He or she have a duty to go into harm way in fact to protected a child from harm.

So no David the two women here does not have a right to place their welfare or safety or even their very lives above that of the child in question.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

If this child had started any fires, he might fall within the group called "crying for help fire starters" as discussed in this article

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19841013&id=NZIbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RU4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=5134,6733876

If this child was terribly unhappy or mistreated in his new adoptive home, he might have talked about wanting to burn things, or even played with matches. This may well have been a cry for help. Given the past stress of his life (being abandoned by an alcoholic mother at the age of 6, then put in an orphanage, then sent off with a stranger to live in a foreign country), it is easy to understand why he might have needed help, and why he might not have been able to express that need in other ways. He certainly deserved to have gotten some help.

We have only the adoptive mother's word for what she claims the child did or said. Why believe her? She may have realized the adoption was a mistake and she may be fabricating reasons. She certainly does not seem to have been a fit mother for this child, judging by the way she sent him back to Russia. Even if this child has serious psychological problems, they could have been addressed and treated. Did this adoptive mother expect that this child wouldn't have any psychological problems after the life he had already been through? Why wasn't she prepared to recognize and deal with those problems?

This poor child certainly has more problems now than he did before. How much repeated rejection can he take?

1 Reply

@firefly,

In addition, this case certainly presents legal issues that should be addressed.

Weren't the kid an American citizen by adoption? He did get an American name and his adoptive mother is American.

Can an American be expelled from his own country?

Can adoption be undone just at a whim of the mother?

What would have happened if the boy was American born?

3 Replies

A couple of points:

1. Would the adoptive mother have been able to legally change his name if he wasn't fully adopted yet? Sounds to me like it was finalized, which makes his behaviour her problem, not theirs. However, if she was misled about his physical and mental health or background (possible FAS), that was wrong, too. Some things you just can't fix, and if she's a single mother, it might have been too much for her. There may have been other situations she didn't mention that just accumulated over time and she realized it was not a good fit.

2. I don't understand why Russia says it's responsible for the welfare of its children until they're 18 no matter where they live; wouldn't you think that would be the province of the adoptive country?

3. I don't think it was criminal for her to send the child back by himself. Lots of kids travel, or have travelled, by themselves on airplanes and other modes of transportation - I did myself when I was 4, 7, 8, and 9. He was in an enclosed space, watched by an attendant and picked up on the other side, so where's the danger?

2 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Weren't the kid an American citizen by adoption? He did get an American name and his adoptive mother is American.

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that the adopted parents can apply for a child below a certain age to become a citizen but it is up to the adopted parents to do so.

My wife oldest adopted daughter is from Canada and my wife decided to allow her daughter to make the decision concerning citizenship when she became of age. So even those she was raised in the US and adopted by citizens at three weeks of age she was not a citizen

After 911, I strongly suggested that given the changing attitudes toward non-citizens that she apply for citizenship at once and she did so becoming one in her twenties.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

3. I don't think it was criminal for her to send the child back by himself. Lots of kids travel, or have travelled, by themselves on airplanes and other modes of transportation - I did myself when I was 4, 7, 8, and 9. He was in an enclosed space, watched by an attendant and picked up on the other side, so where's the danger

The crime in question is abandonment not child endangerment.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis, his mother changed his name, but this may not have been a legal change of name, she may have just been calling him by a new name. I don't believe he had been reissued a new birth certificate with the adoptive mother's name on it. He flew back to Russia with his Russian passport.

I really don't think the adoption had been finalized yet. He had only been with the adoptive mother since September, 2009. I think that in the U.S. it takes a year before an adoption is finalized. When the adoption was finalized the child would have dual citizenship in the U.S. and Russia (the Russian citizenship would last until he was 18).

A finalized adoption cannot be undone at whim. If the adoption was finalized, and the mother wanted to give the child up, this would have to go through a court investigation and proceeding in the U.S.. She could not just abandon the child. If the adoption had not been finalized, she did have the right to notify the Russian agency to say she did not want to continue with the adoption. But that's not how this woman handled it.

I had friends who returned a child to an adoption agency before things had been finalized, and they had no problem doing that, although it was a heart breaking decision for them. They already had a biological child with serious physical disabilities, and the infant they were adopting also began displaying signs of serious physical disabilities. They just felt that managing two such children was more than they could cope with. The adoption agency agreed with them.

This child seems to have gone on two plane flights by himself--one from Tennessee to Washington, D.C., and then a flight from Washington to Moscow. They are questioning why the airlines allowed this unaccompanied minor to take these flights, and why immigration/customs allowed him to leave the country alone.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Thanks, Firefly and Bill. I see that's more to it that I initially thought..

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

When the adoption was finalized the child would have dual citizenship in the U.S. and Russia (the Russian citizenship would last until he was 18).

Once more as far as Russia citizenship is concern I have no idea however American citizenship does not follow from an adoption without the adopted parents taking the steps to apply for it in the name of the child before that child reach a certain age.

This I know from my wife family history as her adopted daughter was a Canadian citizen until she apply as an adult for US citizenship.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

What would have happened if the boy was American born?

It woud be grossly abusive to send him to Russia!

David

0 Replies

ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know