Adopted Boy Sent Back To Russia

[Helen]

Some children may indeed have to be instituionalised, whether they are adopted or not. They are still your children, and you have responsibilities. And surely you will still visit a child of yours, even in an institution?

Look, we have seen a lot of children from Eastern Europe with fetal alcohol symdrome lately, and I'm certainly not trying to minimise this problem, it's truly awful. What I am saying is that when you have adopted a child, this is your child. It should not be abandoned, any more than you would abandon a biological child.

 

[DC]

no matter what the kid has done or said he will do. the Mother failed in her responsibility, and she worsened the situation for the kid. he would propably get more and better help in the USA.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Here is an update to the story:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100410/US.Russia.Adopted.Boy/

 

[Travis]

The child would in all likelihood be in a mental asylum or a juvenile prison, for murdering them. From the description of his activities given in the article, he was already trying to burn down the house. It would've happened - if not this week, then next.

Hmm, similar things were said about the boy who grew up next door to me. Everyone was sure he'd be in prison.....turns out he's a respectable and responsible father of three now.

There are many differences. First off, no one lied to you about the child you were going to give birth to.

So if there is a lie then all bets are off. "Off to disappear ya into the woods Jimmy! The doctor lied when he promised you'd be perfect."

Second, birth parents who give a severely handicapped child up for adoption are not necessarily condemned for that.

They often give up the kids when they are infants because they can't take care of any child.....or they're dead! But someone who gives up a kids just because they are handicapped, I'll definitely condemn them for that!

And third, if you bond to the child before the problems surface, it can affect for the better how you cope with serious problems.

Well, shoot, if the kid had just learned to make "bambi eyes" better his problems would be solved.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Here is an update to the story:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100410/US.Russia.Adopted.Boy/

From that link:

A statement released by Adoption Assistance, Inc. said the child appeared to be adjusting and the mother was enthusiastic during a visit by a social worker in January. But by late March, the agency has been unable to get in touch with her.
"Our agency worked diligently to locate the mother, including e-mails and calls to the client's mother, with no success," the statement said.

Torry's mother, Nancy Hansen, has said the child's violent episodes — which culminated in a threat to burn the family's home to the ground — terrified the family.

The agency said that part of their services includes providing families with education on issues like attachment, bonding, behavioral issues and behaviors associated with institutionalized children.

"If this mother would have contacted us when the adjustment problems began, we would have worked with her on the issues or arranged alternative placement," the agency said.​

There's something very fishy going on here. The adoption agency could have helped her, but she consults an on-line attorney and puts the kid back on a plane to Russia?

 

[quixotecoyote]

From that link:



There's something very fishy going on here. The adoption agency could have helped her, but she consults an on-line attorney and puts the kid back on a plane to Russia?

Well, after the fact, the adoption agency says they would have helped her, anyway.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Another update to the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/13/russia.adoption.returned/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
So if there is a lie then all bets are off. "Off to disappear ya into the woods Jimmy! The doctor lied when he promised you'd be perfect."

Of course adopting a child should not be viewed as casually as adopting a dog from the animal shelter.

But to just ignore the possibility here that someone, for a profit or to get out of caring for a seriously violent child, deceived this woman and it's her tough luck for making a commitment under the deception, is unfair to both the child and the mother.

...They often give up the kids when they are infants because they can't take care of any child.....or they're dead! But someone who gives up a kids just because they are handicapped, I'll definitely condemn them for that!

I had friends who put their developmentally disabled child in a group home when the father in the family developed a brain tumor. Would you condemn them?

...Well, shoot, if the kid had just learned to make "bambi eyes" better his problems would be solved.

You've decided the child is the only victim here. I don't see it that way.



Caveat: If the circumstances turn out not to be as described and the child wasn't that bad, then it's a different story here.



BTW, the quotes in your post are messed up. I'm not Checkmite.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Well, after the fact, the adoption agency says they would have helped her, anyway.

Right now, I'm gonna put my benefit of the doubt with the people that didn't put a 7-year-old alone* on a plane to Russia, and are willing to speak on the to the public.



*Yes, I know that she arranged for people to accompany the kid on various parts of the journey, but it still seems one step shy of slapping a "return to sender" label on his head and sticking him in a mailbox.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I had friends who put their developmentally disabled child in a group home when the father in the family developed a brain tumor. Would you condemn them?

<snip>

If your friends stuck him by himself on a cross country bus with a "To Whom It May Concern" note for a Social Services office that didn't expect him and and a pick-up by a taxi driver they found on Craig's List then, yeah, I would.

I bet that's probably not how they did it, though.

 

[iknownothing]

Well, after the fact, the adoption agency says they would have helped her, anyway.

There's a distinct lack of the grandmother saying they tried anything before the internet lawyer option.

 

[iknownothing]

But to just ignore the possibility here that someone, for a profit or to get out of caring for a seriously violent child, deceived this woman and it's her tough luck for making a commitment under the deception, is unfair to both the child and the mother.

There should be some record of the mother (and/or grandmother) having made contact with people to try to resolve the problem. The adoption agency. Therapists. Social workers. Even trying some sort of inpatient care for treatment.

By the way, if they had done so, then they would have a record of third-party verification that he actually has these particular problems. (Which they could just as easily have made up -- if they've ever watched a Law & Order about a troubled child they could have come up with the same setting-fire type things they did.)

They've done really nothing to make their case.

 

[chillzero]

Source

If the above claims are true, I think I'm going to have to break away from the herd and side with the mother. If your choices are "send the kid back" and "let the kid burn down your house and murder your family", I think the correct option is rather obvious.

Wow.
How about ... oh.... I don't know .... consulting a health professional ... or any medical professional to see if he can be helped? How about contacting the various adoption agencies to see if there is advice and assistance for dealing with cross-cultural issues, or post-adoption issues that might be easily managed?
No - let's just jump straight to "Return to sender".

And I think that 'if' is quite a big one actually, particularly given the follow up story.

Adoption is not a tryout. If you adopt a child you are legally the parent, as if you are the biological parent. When problems arise you deal with them as if it is your biological child.

Exactly.

You can take an absolutist position on either side here. If you are lied to, conned and swindled into adopting a known seriously psychotic child, and you are not prepared for such a child, there is no question the adoption agency and those who likely made a profit off the deception are responsible for the child.

It's not absolutist at all to consider other routes - before taking what should be a last resort step for this child. He may or may not have been abused before reaching America. He may not understand those he is suddenly sent to live with, nor understand why he was suddenly removed from his previous environment whether good or bad. He could be terrified, and he clearly has no advocate.

For the US family, also, it would have supported their part in this to have sought advice, third party opinion - or witness - and to have gone through some channels which were more appropriate than looking up some internet lawyer and booking a flight back.

 

[Checkmite]

He is seven years old. How do you know what he will do next week? I'd be interested in knowing what professional help the parents sought on his behalf. It might also be worthwhile to learn how the parents/grandparent treated him.

How many people is a fire started by a seven year old capable of killing, as opposed to a fire set by an adult?

 

[Checkmite]

And I think that 'if' is quite a big one actually, particularly given the follow up story.

The follow up story - the one that deals with the driver's feelings? The guy is defending himself from criticism in his own country; I don't see what anything he says has to do with the claims made by the family.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If your friends stuck him by himself on a cross country bus with a "To Whom It May Concern" note for a Social Services office that didn't expect him and and a pick-up by a taxi driver they found on Craig's List then, yeah, I would.

I bet that's probably not how they did it, though.

That wasn't Travis' statement I was replying to. He said, "someone who gives up a kids just because they are handicapped, I'll definitely condemn them for that!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

They've done really nothing to make their case.

I'm not arguing that these folks tried everything they could. I'm suggesting maybe they were simply not qualified to know what to do and/or to be able to do it. Someone in that circumstance isn't necessarily going to take the right steps.

Parents are not born with the education to be parents. Just because you adopt is no guarantee of parental skills either.

An orphanage or adoption agency placing a special needs kids with an unqualified parent bears some of the responsibility. I'm just saying, there is no absolute, the mother is a witch, in this case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
It's not absolutist at all to consider other routes - before taking what should be a last resort step for this child. He may or may not have been abused before reaching America. He may not understand those he is suddenly sent to live with, nor understand why he was suddenly removed from his previous environment whether good or bad. He could be terrified, and he clearly has no advocate.

For the US family, also, it would have supported their part in this to have sought advice, third party opinion - or witness - and to have gone through some channels which were more appropriate than looking up some internet lawyer and booking a flight back.

At this point, we don't have a lot of information to be drawing these conclusions about what this family did or didn't do before they sent the kid on a plane. They could have been told tough luck on the phone by an agency that didn't keep a record of the calls. There are many possibilities.

But one possibility is also one of just plain incompetence in managing the situation. Every stupid parent is not a bad parent.

 

[quadraginta]

That wasn't Travis' statement I was replying to. He said, "someone who gives up a kids just because they are handicapped, I'll definitely condemn them for that!"

That wasn't Travis' statement I was replying to, either. There is a subject to the OP you know.

Perhaps you didn't note the last sentence of my post. Some people might construe that as an acknowledgment that I was not choosing to respond to your comment exactly as you had intended it to be received. I felt that the topic of this thread was being overlooked in that exchange.

You can stand down from DEFCON 1 now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The follow up story - the one that deals with the driver's feelings? The guy is defending himself from criticism in his own country; I don't see what anything he says has to do with the claims made by the family.

It does however say, they took care to find legitimate care on the other end of the jet ride, and they didn't just turn the kid over to "someone they contacted on the Internet" implies.