Anti-USA propaganda ? Or just plain sick...

[Faux Pas]

It presumes that children are in a weak position and there for it should be confirmed that parents are the best possible ones that can be found.

You are correct that the donor nation can only protect its citizens until they leave. There for the adopting nation should take over. When a child is adopted in to a society that claims to be able to provide a better life and higher social standards, the donor nation can only expect this society to actually live up to their claims.

The adopting nation (America, in this instance) does take over as agreed to at the Hague Convention. The child isn't thrown into oblivion and forgotten about. The adoptive parents are both protected by, monitored and regulated by the Department of Social Services just as any other adoption would be.

Boethuis is pointing to two specific cases where adoptive parents were found to have criminal records. That happens with inter country adoptions as well despite safeguards to eliminate it.

My point here is, there is a system in place but, just as every other system in the world it isn't infallible.

It ain't perfect folks but, it's all we got.

[tim 360]

I have not read every post in this thread and I realize the topic is poor screening of adoptive parents but there is another side to the coin and I have to think what WiCheese has said is part of the problem.

I didn't see the Dr. Phil show but I have seen a show or two about how damaged some of these kids are.  Often the ones that are available for adoption are the more damaged one.  Even the babies can be damaged.  You would expect that a two year old who has no physical problems would be a normal kid but often in these orphanages the children lay untouched for their whole young life.  Babies are healthier mentally when they are held, played with touched, fed by someone who loves them and even a two year old that has not had that emotional nourishment can end up unable to give or receive affection.  I have seen stories where the young child would keep banging his head on the pavement and others who would try to burn the house down or kill their adoptive parents.  I am sure there are some cases where the parents may have been OK with a more normal baby but when dealing with the things they must they snap. 

I am in agreement that a couple considering adoption of a foreign baby should have all the same background and criminal checks that they would if adopting an American baby.  If that isn't happening it is wrong.  I wish my former secretary still worked for me since she previously worked for an adoption agency arranging adoptions sometimes from Russia and I could find out more from her.  She loved that work and quit here to go back to it.  If I run into her I will ask her more about the checks done for adoptive parents. 

+1 Turbo.  Many of these kids come from tough abusive situtations and some very well-meaning adoptive parents are ill-equipped to deal with them, although at first they are looking at adoption through rose colored glasses at some point they just give-up.  It can be a tough deal for all involved.  IIRC Dan had a friend in Kiev that did work with orphanges and there were many abandoned homeless children.  Anyway, even with the very best scrutiny, some bad adoptive parents and bad kids will slip through no matter what system is in place.  Lets hope it is just a few and no reason to not try to do ones best.

[GQBlues]

Didn't happen.  In at least two of the cases of dead adoptees a parent did, indeed have a criminal record for violence.

My point was, in fact, a "balance" to preceding posts which basically stated there is no problem, it's all sensationalized.  It isn't all sensationalized.

The show itself IS sensationalized. At best, it's irresponsible journalism. The show's staff should have done a research on the government requirement to see if the adopting parent did in fact complied, then qualified. If there was impropriety, then they should've investigated why and shown that as a vital part of the show. To simply show it in the way they did, it provoked outraged without any other explanation which part of the system was broke other than a child was unnecessarily punished in the way that is not acceptable to anyone's standard and care.

Find out if the person tried to consult with family care centers which is widely available for these adopting families in the USA. Take ample time to educate the viewers where these centers are in the event someone need the information. Give out a general information 800 help line or even a production website. The cost of making these available is nil for these shock TV nonsense.

To not determine where the leak in that ship, what the problem was, did not give international adoption the credit it so justly deserve. Which is an overwhelmingly mind-numbing reality. If it was simply an isolated incident, if in fact she had a domestic violent past but allowed to adopt anyway, then stress that fact. Tell the audience how that happened.

Leaving it in the manner they did implied this is far more the norm than otherwise. In that regard - it is VERY sensationalized and VERY wrong.

I won't argue if the show's subject was a cruel way to discipline a child. It is. What I noticed was the child spoke English very fluently. He understood her at every step of the way - even under duress. That suggest to me he's likely been adopted and had been with her for a good while. Did the adoption take place before the quoted protocol above took in effect? I don't know. But my guess is that requirement had always been there.

Lastly, I believe it is very irresponsible of YOU to cite that in the US, there's more credibility in our check system for people adopting animals than we do adopting children internationally. What gives YOU the right to make a VERY irresponsible statement like that?

[Rubicon]

The US show of Dr Phil made the Russian news today.

It showed a part of a show called "mommy's confessions" where a person who adopted a Russian boy made him drink hot sauce and put him under a freezing shower as punishment.

Perhaps if anyone saw the show they can tell if there were actions taken agiainst this woman... to do such a thing to a child is plain sick, regardless of the child being own or adopted.

As you may know there are negotiations to tighten the adoption requirements for U.S. citizens, and this is certainly building the case, whuch may be exactly the goal of showing it in the Russian news.

If any of you guys think this is a fitting punishment for any child, I have some suggestions,,,,

when I was a boy it was a badge of courage to take a cold shower.  my older brother and his friends encouraged me to do it.  it was a sign of being "tough".  as for eating hot sauce, how do we know this boy also did not do it himself just to be mischievous?  or maybe the boy was a glutton and ate too much junk food and sugar, resulting in a stomach ache and heartburn.  hot sauce is an old homeopathic remedy for heartburn.  if you don't believe me, just try it next time you get heartburn and don't have any tums.  apple cider vinegar also works very well.  so maybe this boy is just a wuss, and he will end up playing quarterback for the Chicago Bears.  or maybe he just wanted his 15 minutes of fame, and responded to an advertisement by "Dr" Phil to get on television.  child abuse??  I don't know if these small punishments actually qualify for that, but in our bleeding heart society he was probably removed from the home by child protective services and put in a different home.  boys have endured far worse for thousands of years in the name of military and sports training (Spartan society comes to mind).  if our boys are not tough, how will they defend against the coming invasion by the Chinese?  we all know now how they treat their children, imagine how they treat their enemies.

[Rubicon]

the OP conveniently left out how these children are treated in Russian orphanages prior to being adopted, and what becomes of them if they are not adopted. 

at any given moment there are approximately 800,000 children in orphanages in Russia.  most of these orphanages cannot even afford how water, so (NEWS FLASH!!) there are about 700,000 children already getting by with nothing but cold showers to begin with.  their diets are canned food, they rarely get real meat, fresh fruit or fresh vegetables.  babies are ignored all day long, they are not held or interacted with.  same goes for many of the children.  Russians consider them to be damaged goods and many Russians are only interested in status symbols and these children certainly do not meet that image. 

most of these children will be forced out into the street somewhere between the age of 15 and 18 years of age.  10 percent of them will end their lives with suicide (that's about 80,000 Boethius, not 20).  the rest will resort to drugs alcohol and prostitution.  many thousands of the girls will be trafficked into prostitution by the Russian mafia and send to hell wholes in other parts of eastern Europe and Israel.  by the age of 30 many if not most of these former orphans will be dead or in prison.

hopefully Russia and USA can continue to improve relations so that more children can be adopted by Americans, as most Americans will provide these unwanted children with love, patience and a safe environment to grow up in.

[GQBlues]

I added the anti-US propaganda knowing it could very well be seen as such, and in light of a possible re-negotiation of adoptations it is very likely that such items are to keep the public opinion behind any possible temporary negative effects.

But mostly I placed the topic as parents of a 23-month and 6-month old child who can not imagine that such animals as this "mother" are allowed to keep any children at all, and intervention from a TV show is needed to actually do something about it.

I know the programs of Dr P. and the love of Armican TV for sensational topics. What is a lot harder to understand is that people can show crime on TV (child abuse hopefully *is* a crime) and not suffer any consequences.

A nice comparison is an episode of the Russian "jerry springer", where a con artist who was recently released after 10 years in prison for a pyramid game featured the show.
After all his claims that his new internet "virtual" pyramid was no problem at all, a prosecutor showed up with two uniformed policemen, read the complaints against him and escorted him out to jail.

Shadow-

The story I gathered behind this specific case is that the mother actually have a total of 6 children. Apparently her children are held as models of good behavior in her township in Utah as a leader of a LDS Family Center (Latter Day Saints - Mormon).

Once again, 'apparently', the video was originally sent to the studio to 'showcase' how to discipline kids to behave properly without *beating* them. Take that anyway you want to. Likely after viewing the tape, the producers knew what and how they wanted to show thi$ and what'$ good for their rating$.

Consequently, because of the show's presentation, the mother is currently under investigation for *possible* child abuse.

Take all these and make what you want of it, however, to answer your original query if this is proper parenting in America, all you really have to do is either watch the audience's reaction and/or read Dr. Phil's show blog. Everyone is OUTRAGED no more or less than you or anyone.

Having said that, you can make your own determination if this is accetable in the American society or not. I will assume that answer will likely be similar to your own.

[Rubicon]

PS,

Boethius, you are IMO the Cliff Claven (well...actually...) of this board, so I expect you to retort with your superior opinions and facts.  nobody else but you can correct the rest of us, no matter how good our opinions and facts might be.  so go ahead Boethius, get the last word in.

[Rubicon]

upthread Boethius claims that Russia is a poor country.  I say hogwash to that.  Russia is a country very rich in land area, water, oil, natural gas, minerals, amazing architecture, etc.  that Russian people have a poverty of values is another story.  apparently from reading this forum, many Russians would pay their entire paycheck for an overpriced I phone, or a $500.00 pair of shoes, for status.  with this amount of money they could easily afford to adopt a Russian child, or at least give to a christian charity which helps orpans with food, medical care and interaction.  but of course this is not seen as a status symbol.  not to mention billions of dollars have been skimmed by unnamed officials and oligarchs, who could easily give some of these billions to orphanages to improve the treatment of the children there.

[ECOCKS]

Which brings us back to the point that if Russia's leadership really cared about this issue there would be an effort to gear their social institutions and ministries towards getting their people to adopt the orphans they have, keep the children out of orphanages in the first place and carry out the streamlining and efficiency improvements necessary to properly screen the applicants rather than cherry-picking the tragedies. How about a special highlighting the plight of Russia's orphanages and orphans Mr. Putin?

[Boethius]

blah, blah, blah, Rubicon.  I don't know everything, but it's apparent I do know more about the issue than do you.

Compare Russian GDP to the GDP of any Western industrialized nation. 

Then come back and tell me what a rich country Russia is.

Does Russia have rich individuals?  Of course, and they should be stepping up.  But on a whole, the nation is not yet wealthy.

[Boethius]

Which brings us back to the point that if Russia's leadership really cared about this issue there would be an effort to gear their social institutions and ministries towards getting their people to adopt the orphans they have, keep the children out of orphanages in the first place and carry out the streamlining and efficiency improvements necessary to properly screen the applicants rather than cherry-picking the tragedies. How about a special highlighting the plight of Russia's orphanages and orphans Mr. Putin?

They tried that, Ed.  The Russian government gave stipends (monthly or annually, I can't recall) to Russians who adopted orphans.  There were numerous cases of children being adopted solely for the money, and they were being abused or just dumped on the streets.  

I believe it is almost impossible for Russia to screen U.S. applicants, unless they put Russians on the ground in the U.S. to conduct home studies, background and criminal checks, etc.  So, instead, they have a list of requirements for background checks, home studies, and timing issues for these (two home studies are supposed to be completed after the child has come to the U.S., the first after 3 months, the second after 6).

They could do more by pouring more money into orphanages, but you know very well what happens when Westerners give money to orphanages in Ukraine.

[ECOCKS]

They tried that, Ed.  The Russian government gave stipends (monthly or annually, I can't recall) to Russians who adopted orphans.  There were numerous cases of children being adopted solely for the money, and they were being abused or just dumped on the streets.  

I believe it is almost impossible for Russia to screen U.S. applicants, unless they put Russians on the ground in the U.S. to conduct home studies, background and criminal checks, etc.  So, instead, they have a list of requirements for background checks, home studies, and timing issues for these (two home studies are supposed to be completed after the child has come to the U.S., the first after 3 months, the second after 6).

They could do more by pouring more money into orphanages, but you know very well what happens when Westerners give money to orphanages in Ukraine.

Wait, - STOP THE PRESSES! - the Russians were abusing their own kids?!? Their own? No Americans were involved? No enlightened Europeans are marching in protest over this? Shocker! I cannot believe I missed that Geraldo special on Inter covering this!

Guess some would say that they need to halt all adoptions and work harder on the screening process......

Seriously B, they need to address the issue with something more than payoffs, don't you think?

I know the leaders think this (bribes and payoffs) is the solution to every problem encountered but if the people don't care about their children what is the solution to the problem?

Does trying to blame another political entity or society accomplish anything constructive for those tens of thousands of children crammed into state orphanages who might have a better shot at life even under the over-worked oversight of the New York/Maryland/Georgia/Arizona/Kansas/etc. Department of Child Services workers?

[Boethius]

Seriously B, they need to address the issue with something more than payoffs, don't you think?

How can you do that in a country with the myriad of problems Russia faces?  And, people who are having trouble surviving on their own aren't generally going to adopt children.

Does trying to blame another political entity or society accomplish anything constructive for those tens of thousands of children crammed into state orphanages who might have a better shot at life even under the over-worked oversight of the New York/Maryland/Georgia/Arizona/Kansas/etc. Department of Child Services workers?

I don't think that is the point.  If even one child is murdered, it is too many.  Imagine you are the president of a country that is allowing its children to be sent out, and stories of the abuse Shadow noted originally, and of the murders of others, mostly infants, comes to your attention.  Would you, in good conscience, think "Oh well, the majority have good lives.  Nothing to change here."

[JR]

How about a U.S. court case that confirms the rights of the mother and there for shows the father and American Embassy were wrong in kidnapping ? Until you site the court case and jurisdiction you are still just Spewing Forth.Do you comprehend the English language or read what you think ? Yes, I do (read, write, speak and understand the english language that is).I was talking about that if American citizens were KILLED in the attack, as happened with two British citizens, there might be a request from the U.S. to look in to the matter. Suppositions. You mentioned none of this until now, and again without providing any facts so again: Spewing Forth.Do you think that if I had not added the possibility of anti-US propaganda you or any other "defender of the nation" would not have immediately tried to point in that direction ? Does a bear shit any darned place it wants to? You added it to stir up controversy, that is as plain as the nose on your face.

Have a nice day

[JR]

Once again, 'apparently', the video was originally sent to the studio to 'showcase' how to discipline kids to behave properly without *beating* them. Take that anyway you want to. Likely after viewing the tape, the producers knew what and how they wanted to show thi$ and what'$ good for their rating$.

Consequently, because of the show's presentation, the mother is currently under investigation for *possible* child abuse.

"And now here's The Rest of the Story." Too bad Shadow couldn't/wouldn't take the time to get a more balanced understanding of what exactly was going on before he began Spewing Forth.
The above runs parrallel to my personal experience with the Doc P show and exactly why I refused. Doctor Phil is "Hollywood" and hollywood ain't about helping people.

[JR]

The loving and caring family would die with you in the plane crash, leaving a single child with a big bank account. Ideal target for potential abuse.

Now you're just being stupid. But hey, I'm a firm believer in people doing what comes naturally to them so by all means, continue.

[BC]

Regarding differences between international and domestic adoptions:

For domestic adoptions most US states require what is called a post placement supervisory period where the adoption is not final until the child has been in the adoptive home for at least 6 months and several home visits / reports have been filed with the court who then will make a final decision.

In most international adoptions, the adoption is finalized in the country of origin.

With adoptions for RU children, RU requires reports be filed with their Ministry of Education for 3 years after the adoption.  As indicated in one of my last posts, seems a good number of agencies (worldwide btw) have not complied and put on 'black lists' until they conform.

In the case of the Tennessee child that was sent back to RU, the agency involved, http://www.wacap.org/ probably subcontracted the visits to a local adoption agency in Tennessee.  IIRC there were problems with the visits, one where everything seemed ok and another where they could not arrange a visit.  According to news articles RU revoked their license but their home page does have a link for RU adoptions which leads to a page with the following info:

Adopting from Russia

In 1993, WACAP was the first agency authorized to place children from the Russian Far East with adoptive parents. We have placed hundreds of children from Russia since then. We are registered as an international non-governmental organization (NGO) through the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, as required by Russian law, and are accredited by the Russian Ministry of Education to place children from across the Russian Federation.
With offices in Moscow and Vladivostok, and 11 employees in Russia, WACAP staff assist families every step of the way through the adoption process.

Their schedule of services and fees show that they are not accepting applications for Russia and Kazakhstan show "Currently, we are not accepting applications for
this program." or "This program is currently on hold. We are not accepting applications at this time."

Department of State still shows them as an accredited agency. http://adoption.state.gov/hague/agency4.php?q=48&q1=&q2=0&q4=0&q5=0&dirfld=01#top

I'm confident this agency has done plenty of good, but it does show the level of complexity involved in such arrangements.  Why would a woman choose an agency in Washington state to handle an international adoption with destination Tennessee?  Would the two accredited agencies in Tennessee not handle such?  http://www.swa.net/ offers international adoption services for RU as well as http://www.holstonhome.org/   When reviewing the list of accredited agencies on the DOS site, I noted a lot of religious charity groups etc.  In fact the two, and only two accredited agencies in Tennessee for international adoptions seem to be religious charity organizations, one Methodist and other Christian.  Was this a factor in the mother's choice of agency?  Was it fee's? Was it the application/review process?  No way to really know of course, but it does show that the 'adoption industry' is rather segmented which could be a contributing factor to lapses in home studies, post placement reporting and follow up support.  Indeed, the mother involved may have been overwhelmed with a troublesome child, but why didn't she contact the agencies involved for assistance instead?  One of these two agencies was only an hour away from her home by car, making her choice of service provider quite puzzling..  64.2 miles vs 2476 miles?

Much of the emphasis on bi-lateral agreements RU is pushing for probably relates to reporting lapses and lack of centralized oversight.  The US Government seems hesitant to take on this responsibility in negotiations of a new agreement.



 

[GQBlues]

How can you do that in a country with the myriad of problems Russia faces?  And, people who are having trouble surviving on their own aren't generally going to adopt children.

Quit idolizing an official to lead them strictly by the image he's a representative of the good ol' soviet steel mentality but instead elect a person who'll scrap the very idea and put his interest in the nation's/citizen's best interest. That'll be a good start.

But whatever, it's their country. As Rubicon mentioned above, if they can save a month's worth of salary to get an iPhone for status symbol as a society despite the on-going conditions in these orphanages, who the heck knows what Russians want for Russians in Russia as a whole.

Much of the emphasis on bi-lateral agreements RU is pushing for probably relates to reporting lapses and lack of centralized oversight.  The US Government seems hesitant to take on this responsibility in negotiations of a new agreement.

BC-

The word 'hesitant' is likely an understatement. Considering the talks went for 5 rounds suggest that maybe there is some heavy governmental involvement being levied. You mentioned earlier that Italy had finalized their agreement with Russia and appeared to be a model for handling these adoption regulations. Can you dig in for some details within their agreement?

My speculation with the talks between the US and Russia is this...(stress on speculation):

Russia wants a signed assurance from the DOS to assume full responsibility for the child/ren's welfare in the event the relationship with the adoptive parent/s goes awry. That the incident of the boy being sent back to Moscow never happens again.

From the DOS side that seem daunting. For starters, a myriad of programs will need to be launched to monitor the situation out of each and every family to insure things stay 'normal'. That would literally mean they'll need to infringe on these families lives and privacy ritualistically. If something happens with the adoptive parents, then the US become fully responsible for the child's keep.

A congressional passing of another social funding bill that can cost in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, each year.

From the Russian side, if the agreement is somehow signed and ratified, they for all intent and purposes release untold numbers of children deemed at the lowest scale of adoptable state with gawd-knows-what-condition. Screening will be nothing but a thing of the past. In essence, insuring Russia that the US government takes responsibility of it's (Russian) own problems.

Sort of like Cuba putting their ex-cons on boats heading for Miami, or Russian convicts being labeled as Jews seeking refugee status in the USA. Both of these are factual, too.

[BC]

Can you dig in for some details within their agreement?

My speculation with the talks between the US and Russia is this...(stress on speculation):

Russia wants a signed assurance from the DOS to assume full responsibility for the child/ren's welfare in the event the relationship with the adoptive parent/s goes awry. That the incident of the boy being sent back to Moscow never happens again.

GQ,

Here is a copy  http://www.commissioneadozioni.it/media/48364/accordofrussaratifica.pdf

I've only briefly scanned the document, but it does generally follow procedures in the Hague conventions with additional controls/visits and reporting procedures required by RU, to be followed by the destination state and results transmitted to the RU consulate.

It also provides for procedures to be followed in case the child or family are not able to support a healthy environment, and that RU should be advised of such along with reporting of placement in another family who basically have to follow the same guidelines.  It also includes provisions for repatriation if that is in the best interest of the child.  Costs to be paid by the the country who accepted the adoptive child.

No great show stoppers, but yes, the intent does seem to place the burden on an entity of state vs commercial local agency to ensure all procedures and requirements are fulfilled.  In the case of Italy, the Commission for International Adoptions and regionally the public social service system. Both are government entities.  Controls and visits to be performed by the public social services at the place of residence.  (each town here has one).

In all a very simple agreement of only 14pages.

So yes, at the bottom is that RU wants direct Government involvement and responsibility; and not delegation of authority to a host of private organizations in each US state.  This is probably the 'sticking point' in RU US negotiations.

[ECOCKS]

How can you do that in a country with the myriad of problems Russia faces?  And, people who are having trouble surviving on their own aren't generally going to adopt children.


I don't think that is the point.  If even one child is murdered, it is too many.  Imagine you are the president of a country that is allowing its children to be sent out, and stories of the abuse Shadow noted originally, and of the murders of others, mostly infants, comes to your attention.  Would you, in good conscience, think "Oh well, the majority have good lives.  Nothing to change here."

Absolutely I agree with both of your sentiments here. The FSU faces enormous problems in dealing with the corruption and power struggles holding down infrastructure and economic development before they can even begin to think about this type of social services which actually have a qualitative impact on their society. So why isn't there an outpouring of rage from so-called enlightened countries over the plight of these hundreds of thousands of children and the societies that spawned them instead of attempting to take one country's help to task over what appears to be isolated incidents not very different than what occurs in domestic placements? How many of those children suffer/die from lack of proper medical care, poor nutrition, insufficient access to educational resources and general lack of love or care in their lives?

The cases you cite are tragedies, no doubt. However, the authorities are involved and the "parents" are either under investigation, going through trial or serving their sentences for their deeds. None of these actions will bring back those children and that is a horror. Yet, I suspect these atrocities are no worse and probably better than placements at home and abroad when viewed statistically. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't notice anyone say that there was absolutely nothing to change in the process. I did see several comments that "these things happen", a couple of suggestions that the adoptions should be stopped and many people have offered thoughts as to how to structure a two-phase procedure for strengthening and improving the application and the follow-up.

You are correct. If one child is murdered it IS too many. So, do people really feel the solution is to stop all adoptions (I assume they mean any domestic ones too) and let the children pile up still deeper in the existing orphanages until the system is 100%? Several posters have asked this question in response to posts in this thread without definitive, coherent answers.

What, truly, IS the point of the discussion? Some bad things happened to some Russian children in the US and were mentioned on a TV show. The show segment is then selectively aired with questionable motives in other countries (brought up, perhaps oddly, by a non-American). Again, I note that I don't recall any specials covering the populace's moral outrage or bare-breasted protesters agonizing over the plight of orphans in the FSU. Where is the Doctor Filipov and his expose of those who pocketed those stipends and turned the kids loose on the street or "arranged" for them to go to the Emirates as serving wenches only to end up in forced servitude?

Frankly, I agree with the sentiment that Americans (and Brits, Canadians, Belgians, Somalis, Turks, etc. shouldn't be adopting internationally while there are children in their own countries languishing in orphanages or short-term, foster care homes. I have no sense of admiration for Angelina Jolie, Elton John, John McCain or any of those celebrities/politicians who ignore the children of their own countries in an effort to garner headlines for their compassion and charity by adopting abroad, buying them bicycles and clothing, then hiring 4 nannies and a couple of drivers to take care of them. Even the ones who are honestly caring for the individual child are a bit off in their priorities IMO. Just as the FSU needs to look after their own children first, if each individual concentrated on spreading love, food, educational access, health care and understanding in a circle from where they are living rather than hopping over to the third world in search of a child to lavish their feelings on, the world would be a far, far, better place.

[dbneeley]

The elephant in this particular room is that there is a widespread aversion among many in the FSU to the idea of raising someone else's kids. That is, after all, a major part of the well-known problem of single mothers finding willing mates, and why many of them turn to foreign suitors to begin with.

This depresses the numbers of these kids who are adopted from the orphanages here, no matter the age of the children involved. As hard as it is to arrange for adoptions in the U.S. in many cases, it is even harder here.

The fact is that orphans often have a very hard life, no matter where they are. The idea that they should remain in orphanages in the FSU because a small percentage might be abused abroad seems to ignore the level of abuse that is common here, yet which often goes unremarked.

By no means should efforts to assure the welfare of adopted kids be discontinued--whether they are adopted domestically or across borders. To pretend that this is a particular problem with American adoptive families, though, simply is not correct.

David

[ECOCKS]

Hold it, I'm confused.

Who is supposed to be the glib, droning lawyer and who the over-simplifying layman here?

Succinctly put David.

[Boethius]

The fact is that orphans often have a very hard life, no matter where they are. The idea that they should remain in orphanages in the FSU because a small percentage might be abused abroad seems to ignore the level of abuse that is common here, yet which often goes unremarked.

By no means should efforts to assure the welfare of adopted kids be discontinued--whether they are adopted domestically or across borders. To pretend that this is a particular problem with American adoptive families, though, simply is not correct.

I don't think the abuse in the FSU goes unremarked.  And I don't think anyone is suggesting it is a particular problem with American adoptive families.  The issue on the forum was raised because of one particular U.S. programme, and one particular U.S. case.   

I don't think that saying it is worse there means the issue shouldn't be addressed elsewhere.

[Daveman]

The elephant in this particular room is that there is a widespread aversion among many in the FSU to the idea of raising someone else's kids. That is, after all, a major part of the well-known problem of single mothers finding willing mates, and why many of them turn to foreign suitors to begin with.

This depresses the numbers of these kids who are adopted from the orphanages here, no matter the age of the children involved. As hard as it is to arrange for adoptions in the U.S. in many cases, it is even harder here.

The fact is that orphans often have a very hard life, no matter where they are. The idea that they should remain in orphanages in the FSU because a small percentage might be abused abroad seems to ignore the level of abuse that is common here, yet which often goes unremarked.

By no means should efforts to assure the welfare of adopted kids be discontinued--whether they are adopted domestically or across borders. To pretend that this is a particular problem with American adoptive families, though, simply is not correct.

David

Yahtzee!

[BC]

Yahtzee!

Well for whatever reason, adoptions to the US has halved over the last 5 years, 13,000 or so in 2009, lowest total in over a decade.

http://adoption.state.gov/news/total_chart.html

Some could attribute it to economic factors, but for some reason in little ol' Italy international adoption numbers are at a record levels for the last two years around 4000, with almost a third coming from RU and Ukraine.  The largest number, 700+ from RU and 400+ from UA.  This represents almost doubling the number of international adoptions over the same 10 years..

Quite a feat for a country of 60,000,000 vs the US with 307,000,000

And this despite agreements with RU.

Certainly not saying that Italy is immune to abuse of adopted children, in fact one was reported back in October (origins of the child unknown) Mother from Nigeria inflicting grave injuries to her adopted child.  Other than this I could not find anything else.  Maybe Sandro can find other incidents.  I doubt even extensive research will be able to identify anywhere near the 17 deaths mentioned in this article from today.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/01/26/Russian-urges-halt-to-foreign-adoptions/UPI-29671296071685/

Bottom line, I do think RU is being quite prudent with terms in their bi-lateral agreements.  There are probably no terms in the disputed draft agreement with the US that aren't already the norm elsewhere.  If the US does agree, it will have an impact on the commercialized adoption business.  Maybe that's the real factor US officials have been stumbling over for 5 negotiation meetings.