ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

@OmSigDAVID,

You are jumping leaps re this young child, David. I think it is your own fear in action. It is possible he is as damaged as you say - we don't know that. It is much more likely that he is a mixed up mess and could have been helped, but that he was tossed in a bin, forthwith, but the putative adoptive mom.
You are just postulating in fear and the boy is living this stuff out.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

You are jumping leaps re this young child, David. I think it is your own fear in action. It is possible he is as damaged as you say - we don't know that. It is much more likely that he is a mixed up mess and could have been helped, but that he was tossed in a bin, forthwith, but the putative adoptive mom.
You are just postulating in fear and the boy is living this stuff out.

but, Osso, he never threatened ME; he is not mad at ME

He does not know where MY real estate is.

What do I have to fear from him ?

What is your thinking in that matter ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I think that most people agree that the child probably has emotional and behavioral problems, and possibly neurological problems as well, simply because of his past life experience. These are the kinds of problems you can expect to see in many of the children adopted out of Russian orphanages.

But we really don't know how this child actually behaved in his adoptive home.

We have only a few comments about the child's behavior which were made by the adoptive grandmother, and those statements were made to quell worldwide outrage directed at her and her daughter. So, of course, those statements would be designed to demonize the child and make them look like helpless victims of his reign of terror. How else could they justify what they had just done to this child?

Except they weren't helpless victims. They just failed to reach out for professional help, either for the child or for themselves, to help them all deal with a difficult adjustment process. A social worker who evaluated the adoption situation in January said no problems were reported at that time, so one has to wonder what might have triggered off serious difficulties more recently, or even whether the grandmother's report was at all accurate.

While we don't know for sure how the child behaved, we do know how the adoptive mother and grandmother acted, and their behavior was really quite bizarre.

Rather than have this child treated, or placed outside their home, or released for another adoption, they instead devised a bizarre scheme to absolve themselves of parental responsibility by shipping the child back to Russia--by himself. And to accomplish this, they hunt up a man on the internet and pay this stranger to meet the child's plane and escort the boy to the Russian authorities, and just leave him there, along with a brief letter explaining why they were returning the "merchandise". They didn't tell this man, until the last minute, that he would be picking up a 7 year old at the airport, and he subsequently complained of being deceived and used by these women. They didn't notify the Russian authorities to expect the child. And they really didn't tell the child where he was going.

Their actions, and the whole scheme they devised, are really quite bizarre. This is not how normal, rational parents deal with their child's problems, no matter how serious those problems are, nor is it how normal rational parents surrender their parental rights. And, if they truly believed this child was a serious danger and a threat, how could they responsibly send him alone, and unsupervised, on a transatlantic flight and then into the care of an unsuspecting stranger? Probably because these are not responsible people.

So, while we don't know, for sure, how the child behaved in his adoptive home, we do know, for sure, that his caretakers engaged in irresponsible and bizarre behavior. And there is no reasonable or rational excuse for their behavior. It was bizarre. One can only imagine what they may have put this child through when he was living under their roof. These are not normal rational responsible people.

I don't think we have to worry about Torry Hansen ever again hurting or mistreating another adoptive child. I doubt there are any adoption agencies, anywhere in world, who would ever again place a child in this woman's care.

1 Reply

Firefly and others
it is good to see people who understand the adopted Russian boy´s problems and condemn the adopted mother´s behavior.
David´s arguments about self defense falls apart here. There is no self defence with guns against a fire. Not once has he said that the mother should have had guns in the house for self defence. Just ship the boy off to Russia.
This shows what a coward David basicly is.

1 Reply

@saab,

It seems to me that David only has two categories of humans: those, who are happy to shoot, and those who should get shot.

Within these two groups, there are some subgroups, sure.

What really makes me said is (similar to what saab, firefly, osso et. al said) that adoption just and only seems to be a commercial act: if something is wrong with the paid for thing (sic!), give it back to the producer.

Adopters certainly have various, personal reasons why they want to adopt a child (sic!).
Some do it, because it's "in", others, because they want heathens to come to heaven.

Whatever their reason(s) might be, they adopt a child, a young(er) human. Not a 'thing'.
And obviously some aren't prepared for doing such.

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

A few years ago there was an article about adopted children in Denmark
Years ago it was in to adopt children from Korea and Southamerica.
As the waitinglist was very long for Danish children many wanted a child from oversea - they just simply wanted a child.
Then there was a group who wanted to "save the world" by adopting a child from overseas - some already had children of their own.
Amongst the last group more people wanted to "return" the child than within any other group.
Also there were more suicides by the adopted children than in any other group including families with only biological children.
You don´t adopt a child to save the world and because you are an idealist but because you want a child and the concequences are just the same as if you have a biological child - it cannot be returned.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It seems to me that David only has two categories of humans:
those, who are happy to shoot, and those who should get shot.

That 's an interesting, if humorous, way of looking at it, Walter.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Within these two groups, there are some subgroups, sure.

Yeah, Y not ?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

What really makes me said is (similar to what saab, firefly, osso et. al said)
that adoption just and only seems to be a commercial act:
if something is wrong with the paid for thing (sic!), give it back to the producer.

Well, Torrey 's position is that she was defrauded by the Russians.
Thus, she fought back against the fraud, and she succeeded!
She restored the status quo ante (before the fraud).
I think that the Hansen girls did well.

Let 's bear in mind that the boy is in the same position
that he was before the fraud, and he got an expense-free vacation in the USA.
Note also that he arrived back in Russia in PERFECT condition (except that he is still a violent lunatic).

His travel on the plane did him no harm, however slight.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Adopters certainly have various, personal reasons why they want to adopt a child (sic!).

U think so? Maybe. Adoption into your own family is a personal decision.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Some do it, because it's "in", others,

Is adoption fashionable, Walter ?
I was not aware of that. Regardless, I am not going to do it; no chance.
History has shown a relatively high incidence of adopted boys
assassinating their parents, after disagreements, and remember: he stands to profit thru inheritance.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

because they want heathens to come to heaven.

Thay WANT that?? Are the Hansens religious girls ?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Whatever their reason(s) might be, they adopt a child,
a young(er) human. Not a 'thing'.
And obviously some aren't prepared for doing such.

Well, Walter, in fairness to the Hansens,
it is not obvious that there 'd have been any trouble
with this kid IF he had not been a violent lunatic.

David

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I re-iterate, Walter:
u post from a position of selflessness, even at the risk of personal danger,
whereas I encourage people to defend themselves, on an egocentric basis.

I recommend that citizens thru out America think of themselves first.
I encourage selfishness; that is the natural way.

David

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I think that most people agree that the child probably has emotional and behavioral problems, and possibly neurological problems as well, simply because of his past life experience. These are the kinds of problems you can expect to see in many of the children adopted out of Russian orphanages.

But we really don't know how this child actually behaved in his adoptive home.

We don 't; not for sure.

firefly wrote:

We have only a few comments about the child's behavior which were made by the adoptive grandmother, and those statements were made to quell worldwide outrage directed at her and her daughter. So, of course, those statements would be designed to demonize the child and make them look like helpless victims of his reign of terror.

It is possible that she was just describing what actually happened.

firefly wrote:

How else could they justify what they had just done to this child?

By self defense; I disagree that thay DID anything to him
other than to put him back into his earlier situation.

firefly wrote:

Except they weren't helpless victims. They just failed to reach out for professional help, either for the child or for themselves, to help them all deal with a difficult adjustment process.

If thay took the time for that, thay 'd be at risk during that time; too dangerous.

firefly wrote:

A social worker who evaluated the adoption situation in January said no problems were reported at that time, so one has to wonder what might have triggered off serious difficulties more recently, or even whether the grandmother's report was at all accurate.

Presumably, he had not yet become hostile nor threatening.

firefly wrote:

While we don't know for sure how the child behaved, we do know how the adoptive mother
and grandmother acted, and their behavior was really quite bizarre.

Well, u must admit that the Hansen girls succeeded in their defense; it worked.

firefly wrote:

Rather than have this child treated, or placed outside their home, or released for another adoption, they instead devised a bizarre scheme to absolve themselves of parental responsibility by shipping the child back to Russia--by himself.

Thay simply UNDID the injustice that had been perpetrated upon them. There is some cleverness in that.
Please note that NO HARM WHATSOEVER befell the boy by flying alone.
I used to travel alone, as a kid (not age 7; age 11).

firefly wrote:

And to accomplish this, they hunt up a man on the internet and pay this stranger to meet the child's plane and escort the boy to the Russian authorities, and just leave him there, along with a brief letter explaining why they were returning the "merchandise".

It all worked out fine; perfectly.

firefly wrote:

They didn't tell this man, until the last minute, that he would be picking up a 7 year old at the airport,
and he subsequently complained of being deceived and used by these women.

He is unharmed. He was in no danger; he picked up people at the airport, for a living.

firefly wrote:

They didn't notify the Russian authorities to expect the child.

That 's a good thing; the Russians might have resisted.
The Hansen girls were well served by the element of surprize over the Russians.

firefly wrote:

And they really didn't tell the child where he was going.

Y do u believe that??
Is there any evidence
that he did not know where the plane was going?

He coud freely ask the flight crew.

Its also written on your boarding pass,
along with times of departure and arrival.

The airline also calls it out at the airport:
"flight 111 from NY to Moscow now boarding".

firefly wrote:

Their actions, and the whole scheme they devised, are really quite bizarre.

Thay did what WORKED. Kinda clever; thay beat the Russian fraudsters.

firefly wrote:

This is not how normal, rational parents deal with their child's problems, no matter how serious those problems are,
nor is it how normal rational parents surrender their parental rights.

Assuming that to be true, there is room for innovation.
Thay need not be followers of fashion.
We can consider it a nimble, creative solution to a nasty, dangerous problem.

firefly wrote:

And, if they truly believed this child was a serious danger and a threat, how could they responsibly send him alone, and unsupervised,
on a transatlantic flight and then into the care of an unsuspecting stranger?

Do u mean that he might have burned the plane? or the stranger? Probably not.
Maybe thay searched him for incendiary materials, or the TSA did; I dunno.
Thay even have machines that shwoosh air around u to analyse whether u are
carrying explosives or incendiary materials.

firefly wrote:

Probably because these are not responsible people.

Well, thay got the job DONE.

firefly wrote:

So, while we don't know, for sure, how the child behaved in his adoptive home, we do know, for sure, that his caretakers engaged in irresponsible and bizarre behavior. And there is no reasonable or rational excuse for their behavior.

There was nothing from which to be excused; thay did nothing immoral.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I re-iterate, Walter:
u post from a position of selflessness, even at the risk of personal danger,
whereas I encourage people to defend themselves, on an egocentric basis.

I recommend that citizens thru out America think of themselves first.
I encourage selfishness; that is the natural way.

David

No, I don't post "from a position of selflessness".

My posts here are about adoption. Sometime, you (and a few others) obviously think about like going to a cash-'n-carry.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I re-iterate, Walter:
u post from a position of selflessness, even at the risk of personal danger,
whereas I encourage people to defend themselves, on an egocentric basis.

I recommend that citizens thru out America think of themselves first.
I encourage selfishness; that is the natural way.

David

Walter Hinteler wrote:

No, I don't post "from a position of selflessness".

With all respect: it shows in your posts.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

My posts here are about adoption. Sometime, you (and a few others)
obviously think about like going to a cash-'n-carry.

Not for ADOPTION. I have dated chicks who have children,
and I 've had good, friendly convivial relationships with them,
treating them with affection and with respect,
but there has never been any chance that I 'd legally adopt them.

It is enuf just to give them unexpected cash and other presents to make them happy.

I don't believe that it is wise to put someone into a position
of profiting by my demise.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

History has shown a relatively high incidence of adopted boys
assassinating their parents, after disagreements, and remember: he stands to profit thru inheritance.

______________________________________________________
Can you prove what you said with statistics? Do you realize that also biological sons might assassinate their parents? Also girls might do it.
You are extremely bias when it comes to adopted children.

1 Reply

@saab,

David wrote:

History has shown a relatively high incidence of adopted boys
assassinating their parents, after disagreements, and remember: he stands to profit thru inheritance.

______________________________________________________

saab wrote:

Can you prove what you said with statistics?

NO, because I am much too lazy; however, my torpid lack of motivation
to do that is counterbalanced by my lethargy.

saab wrote:

Do you realize that also biological sons might assassinate their parents?

Thay have DONE it, but my casual observation of the news for several decades
has indicated to me that adopted sons do DISPROPORTIONATELY more than biological sons.

saab wrote:

Also girls might do it.

Less likely; thay have not done it as ofen, so far as the news has shown.

saab wrote:

You are extremely bias when it comes to adopted children.

Its better not to take unnecessary chances.
Keep a respectful, friendly distance.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I recommend that citizens thru out America think of themselves first.
I encourage selfishness; that is the natural way.

OmSigDAVID, parents, whether biological or adoptive, do not have the luxury of "selfishness". They have legal and moral obligations to care for their children according to the lawful standards of the state and country in which they reside.

By her own admission, the adoptive mother in this case felt that this child suffered from severe psychiatric illness. But, during the seven months she parented this child, she failed to get him appropriate psychiatric treatment and, under the law, that is medical neglect of a child. The adoptive grandmother has acknowledged that this child was never seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist. That is medical neglect.

Under the law, you cannot legally abandon your child to the care of others--for any reason. This adoptive mother would be guilty of abandonment if she had deposited the child at the front door of a local police station with a letter stating she wanted the U.S. government to take him off her hands, just as she would have been guilty if she had similarly left him at the Russian embassy in Washington, D.C., and just as she is guilty of abandoning him by sending him back to the Russian Ministry of Education. You cannot simply discard your children. This woman is guilty of child abandonment. Abandonment is child abuse.

The adoptive mother in this case is a registered nurse. Nurses are mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect. Therefore, she cannot claim to be ignorant of such laws, or of the legal standards obligating parents to maintain certain basic standards of care for their children.

There is little point in discussing the topic of this thread with someone who feels that child welfare/protection laws can be disregarded at the whim of a parent who prefers to be selfish, or who even claims to be acting in "self defense". Child protection laws are not optional--they apply to all parents. When one advocates the essentially unlawful treatment of children, they have really gone beyond the pale, and that is what OmSigDAVID has done in this thread.

2 Replies

@firefly,

A serious indicator of David misunderstanding about parents' duties toward children is that he has no kids and doesn't want to.

That alone makes his positions untenable..

1 Reply

@firefly,

Several nice posts in this thread from you, firefly.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Just because someone doesn't have, or want, or even like, children, doesn't necessarily make their positions automatically untenable.

Someone can chose not to have children, but still understand and know that parents, those people who do have children, are bound by certain legal obligations to those children. David's positions are untenable because he is advocating disregard of child welfare/protection laws. He is, therefore, advocating child abuse and neglect. That is not a morally, or legally, defensible position.
---------------------------------------------

Thank you, sozobe

2 Replies

@firefly,

Well, I didn't made myself clear, it was obvious to me that David feared parricide and that's the reason he has such an absurd discourse.

2 Replies

@Francis,

The video on this Web page offers an interesting update on the boy, and ongoing investigations into the adoptive mother's behavior. It is worth watching.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/adopted-boy-back-russia-sign-mental-issues-problems-officials/story?id=10349424

The boy is still regarded as a U.S. citizen, because of the adoption, so U.S. authorities are remaining involved. Russian families are now offering to adopt him, and that would probably be in his best interest, since the culture and language would be familiar to him, and that sort of transition would probably be less disruptive and confusing for him.

I do hope that the American agencies which are involved with future Russian adoptions now make sure that they alert prospective parents to the possible emotional, behavioral, and adjustment problems these children might display, and provide them with lists of resources they can turn to if problems should arise. Their screening process for parents should also address whether the prospective parents can deal with the added stress which such children might bring into the new home. While all children adopted internationally might not display such problems, all potential parents must be prepared to deal with such problems should they arise. The fact that 14 children, adopted from Russia by Americans, have been killed or died while in the care of adoptive parents, does suggest these issues must be addressed.

With Russian adoptions, the adoption is finalized by the time you leave Russia with the child, and the parent has generally spent very little time with the child prior to agreeing to the adoption. That is not the situation with a domestic adoption within the U.S.. With the domestic adoption of a child, who is beyond the age of infancy, the prospective parent can visit with the child and generally spend much more time getting to know the child, and being sure the child is a good match for their home, before agreeing to the adoption. Finalization of a U.S. adoption takes an average of 6 months, and there are regular follow-up visits by the adoption agency during that time. So there is some monitoring of what is going on in the new adoptive home. Because the Russian adoptions are already finalized, the follow-up monitoring might not be as careful.

Even if the Russian agencies omit info about older children, to hasten their adoption, no prospective parent should be blind to the potential for problems, even if they are not disclosed, or even apparent, prior to the adoption. Prospective parents must do their own homework, and, with the adoption of any older child, they should be prepared for a possibly difficult period of readjustment in the new home.

No child, whether biological or adopted, is ever problem free. No child comes with warranties. And most adoptions turn out well for all parties.

I do hope that Artyem Saviliev is able to find a new, loving home, and that things will finally turn out well for him. This child certainly deserves that.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
You are jumping leaps re this young child, David. I think it is your own fear in action. It is possible he is as damaged as you say - we don't know that. It is much more likely that he is a mixed up mess and could have been helped, but that he was tossed in a bin, forthwith, but the putative adoptive mom.
You are just postulating in fear and the boy is living this stuff out.

but, Osso, he never threatened ME; he is not mad at ME
He does not know where MY real estate is.

What do I have to fear from him ?
What is your thinking in that matter?
David

Excuse me, that was by the putative adoptive mom.

My thinking is that much of your a2k persona is as a stalwart about self defense, and that underlying the continual posting about it is a seemingly constant fear of harm from others to you and others, a kind of fear based living. This seems so strong that there appears no room left for compassion for a rejected small child, or any understanding that the child had a human right to receive care if indeed he has psychological or neurological disturbance.

2 Replies

ADOPTED RUSSIAN BOY REJECTED, IN SELF DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know