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

[Gator]

That's not entirely true, Gator.. There is no law that prohibits the adoption of healthy babies by foreign nationals.

Many things are accomplished in Russia (and even in the US) without being empowered by a transparent law.  It is called executive prerogative.

...the MoE routinely tries to "stick" foreign couples with "defective" babies, and many referrals are turned down for health reasons.. Most couples don't want the hassle, though, and accept the first referral that comes along.

Other than the newly adopted babies I have seen on Delta flights from Moscow, my experience is limited to this one example. 

You are correct that this was a hassle, yet less so than in the USA and the baby is white.  This particular AW turned down a couple referrals before accepting the one boy.  IIRC she spent two years and $40,000 to adopt the boy.  Her father (my friend) may three trips, and they were working with a church organization.  The boy requires some orthopedic remedies and is progressing well, yet will always have some skeletal issues.  The AW retained an American physician to review the lad's situation, and the physician advised her to get him into the US where he will receive treatment. 

[Blues Fairy]

It is merely noting that despite all the success stories, there are still holes in the system.  Seventeen (now confirmed) dead children is seventeen too many.   Given that adoption agencies are supposed to make unannounced home visits, and that most of these children were abused for some time before their deaths, something is amiss and needs to be addressed.  Making improvements to save lives should be the focus, rather than spurious indignation for pointing to flaws in the system.

I've already asked above, what if the adoptive parent has passed all the pre-adoption checks properly and is able to put up a good show in case of unannounced visits, what safeguards would you propose then?  When natural parents abuse and kill their natural children, you don't look for holes in the "system" since there is no system, there are just bad parents and their individual guilt, not any system's.  However, one killed child is one too many regardless of whether it's an adopted or natural one, won't you agree?  Why not address this problem as a whole, then?  Just because adopting families are easier targets for control and will surrender some of their privacy in return for the privilege of raising a child from a country where child abuse is even more prevalent, and uncontrollable, than in theirs?  Seems a little unfair, both to the adoptive parents, and to all of the abused kids who were not adopted, and therefore not protected by similar rigid control.

[wicheese]

You are correct that this was a hassle, yet less so than in the USA and the baby is white.  

When I talked to my co-worker this past week about the issue, he said what turned them off to adopting in America, is the fact that the mother giving up the child has a lot of opportunities to either change her mind at the last second or even come in after the child was adopted during a period when the adoptive parents started bonding with the child and this was an emotional stress they did not want to go through (like some families that adopt, they were unable to have children as they suffered through several miscarages so I understand their position).  

IIRC she spent two years and $40,000 to adopt the boy.  Her father (my friend) may three trips, and they were working with a church organization.

 

This timeline and cost is not too different from what my co-worker expects it'll be, so the process is neither easy or cheap.

[Boethius]

I've already asked above, what if the adoptive parent has passed all the pre-adoption checks properly and is able to put up a good show in case of unannounced visits, what safeguards would you propose then?  When natural parents abuse and kill their natural children, you don't look for holes in the "system" since there is no system, there are just bad parents and their individual guilt, not any system's.  However, one killed child is one too many regardless of whether it's an adopted or natural one, won't you agree?  Why not address this problem as a whole, then?  Just because adopting families are easier targets for control and will surrender some of their privacy in return for the privilege of raising a child from a country where child abuse is even more prevalent, and uncontrollable, than in theirs?  Seems a little unfair, both to the adoptive parents, and to all of the abused kids who were not adopted, and therefore not protected by similar rigid control.

I suspect unannounced home visits would increase the ability to spot abuse. 

I do agree any child, whether or not adopted, deserves protection, but adoptive parents agree to infringements of their privacy rights.

[BC]

I suspect unannounced home visits would increase the ability to spot abuse.  

I do agree any child, whether or not adopted, deserves protection, but adoptive parents agree to infringements of their privacy rights.

Surprise visits of course go a good bit further than even what RU officials are pushing for.

Lets take a different tack Boethius and just agree to the thesis that the overwhelming good justifies the losses..

It has been cited that 17 RU children were killed. If one can agree that the total children from RU account for about 20% of international adoptions, the following questions come to mind:

1. Have 85 internationally adopted children been killed over the same time period as these 17?
2. Do adoptive kids from RU experience a higher rate of murder by adoptive parents than their peers from other countries?
3. Is the rate of murder by adoptive parents for international adoptions equal to that of domestic adoptions?
4. If the rate is the same, would approximately 200 children killed by adoptive parents in both international and domestic adoptions, within the time-frame be an acceptable level of tolerance for maintaining the 'status quo'?
5. How does the murder rate of international / domestic adoptions compare to other countries, is it above or below?  

Certainly a tough set of questions to answer, maybe even impossible to answer but do provoke some thought.

Some facts are known...

The 17 children that died were in the period 1996 to 2010 a period of 14 years.
http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/p/russiancases.htm

1999 to 2009 there were 213,496 international adoptions.
http://adoption.state.gov/news/total_chart.html

Using these two sources, 14 children from RU were murdered FY 1999 to 2009, average age 3.5, lowest age 1 highest age 8.

One fifth of international adoptions were from RU 1999 to 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-04-12-Russia-adoptions_N.htm

So one can interpret that 14 deaths among 42,700 is a fairly accurate figure to start out with.  3.2 per 10.000 with an average age of 3.5 years old for adopted RU children.

Regarding age group 1 to 4 the number of RU children killed were 9 representing 2.1 per 10,000

From http://www.chartsnstats.com/?p=55 first table children aged 1-4, 2077 children of this age were murdered by parents 60% of total. 1999 to 2007  If one divides the number of children by 9 the result is 231 per year.  If one considers census data http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0007.pdf that shows a fairly stable population by this age group of 20 million, I believe the homicide rate by parents is far lower for the general population than it is for adoptive children from RU.  

I really do hope someone can find a huge error and prove me wrong.  2.1 per 10.000 is very different from 231 per 20 million....

[ECOCKS]

Follow-up:

Disciplinary Hot Sauce: Is it Child Abuse?

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/disciplinary-hot-sauce-is-it-child-abuse-24025849

Interesting points: it IS a food item. Is making them eat broccoli abuse? I know if my parents had forced me to eat tomatoes I would have considered it inhuman. Plenty of kids lick a bar of soap or two in their lives, spankings don't seem to have affected anyone particularly negatively and so on. The opinions are coming out of the woodwork on this one.

[BC]

Follow-up:

Disciplinary Hot Sauce: Is it Child Abuse?

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/disciplinary-hot-sauce-is-it-child-abuse-24025849

Interesting points: it IS a food item. Is making them eat broccoli abuse? I know if my parents had forced me to eat tomatoes I would have considered it inhuman. Plenty of kids lick a bar of soap or two in their lives, spankings don't seem to have affected anyone particularly negatively and so on. The opinions are coming out of the woodwork on this one.

Whether abuse or not will be decided by the courts..

What's more important is to know if such really works - and I highly doubt it.

The first part of a childs life is learning by mimic.

Yell at a child and that child will learn to yell right back.
Strike a child and that child will learn to strike back.

If you watch the video closely and listen to what she says, it's a classic case of escalating punishment that is not working in the first place..  One can only ask what the next levels of punishment will be.  Think of it as a precursor to clear physical abuse.

Nobody tried to figure out why the child lied (sometimes used as a way to get attention.. any attention), but the bottom line here is that there was not enough trust between child and mother for the child to be able to admit having done something wrong.  He was so scared of the punishment that he could not utter the words 'I'm sorry' or 'I was wrong' in the first place..  I doubt even that an honest attempt would have been recognized, with the same punishment following anyway.

The mother is clearly frustrated and has a lot to learn about parenting, thinking that the way she was brought up is the only way.  She is probably not at fault but rather her parents, even grandparents.  She needs help to turn the situation around.  Such can take years, but help is available.

Did my mother ever say that she'd wash our mouths out with soap?.. sure.. but she never did.
Did my mother ever say we had to go out and pick our own switches?.. sure.. but she never used them.
Very wise choices IMHO.  Parenting can be very challenging and frustrating, but when a hand or voice is raised in anger, the parent has lost it.

[Boethius]

I do think putting hot sauce in a child's mouth is child abuse.  Capiscan does cause a burning sensation in the mouth, and children's taste buds are sharper than those of adults, which is why they often don't like cruciferous vegetables.  Sticking a child under a cold shower is also child abuse.

Why did the child lie?  Because he knew he would be punished.  He's a seven year old who was fighting with another boy at school over pencils.  Does that really require an interrogation and additional inappropriate punishment at home?

BC, my father did have to go out and find a switch when he misbehaved.  My Grandmother was a strict disciplinarian, my Grandfather refused to spank his kids.  But, she had seven spirited children to raise.  My father's reaction to this was to vow he would never spank his children.  And he never did.

[ECOCKS]

Yeah B but look how you turned out.

J/K!

I don't think feeding a child Hot Sauce is child abuse, in and of itself. What id she has put it on a taco and sat him at a table and told him to eat it or go hungry? Should she be disciplining differently? Possibly, even probably, but I am simply not sure that the government needs to step in and begin defining various food stuffs as cruel and unusual punishment (this despite my beliefs regarding tomatoes).

Is dressing a male child in a pink sweater abusive? What about buying boy's boxer shorts for your little daughter since she's such a tomboy? What about sending a child to school wearing PETA T-shirts when the kid loves to eat hamburgers? Can a parent "make" their child eat spinach but not a spicy Cajun jambalaya as punishment for behavior?

Once you start down this path, where does it end? Are we talking a new Department of Parental Control to regulate foodstuffs, clothing, length of switches, shower temperatures, force exerted per sq. inch during spankings, which soaps can be used to wash a child's mouth out or which vegetables are used for "punishment eating"?

Are these the same people who question the intrusion of VAWA or IMBRA into their lives as unwarranted?

[BC]

ECOCKS,

I could sit down with my little boy, and as punishment make him drink water until he dies.  Would that be abuse?  So yes, there there is a line, but does that line have to be when the child has suffered grievous or irreparable harm?

The most telling words were that of the mother in the video "I don't know what to do with him" (If I understood correctly).  This means that the mother has reached the end of her means with nothing good in sight unless help is sought.

I hope she gets it.

[Boethius]

I agree with BC.

Ed, please go and view the video, which GQ posted, again.  Note the terror in that child's voice.  Note the terror in his body language.  Note the anger in the "mother's" voice.  That is a woman out of control (which I believe was the title to Dr. Phil's episode that day).

A mother should never engender terror in her child.  That is the definition of failure in the role of mother.  A child should feel his/her mother will always accept him/her, no matter what the child does, and that his/her mother would give his life for that child. 

A family home should be the respite from the world outside, not a place of stress for a child.  I could barely watch that video.

[BC]

Ed, please go and view the video, which GQ posted, again.  Note the terror in that child's voice.  Note the terror in his body language.  Note the anger in the "mother's" voice.  That is a woman out of control (which I believe was the title to Dr. Phil's episode that day).

If I understand correctly, the daughter filmed the video.. wonder why..

Also the paper she was holding while scolding the child.. like a script to follow.

Yes, a chilling scene.

[ECOCKS]

If I understand correctly, the daughter filmed the video.. wonder why..

Also the paper she was holding while scolding the child.. like a script to follow.

Yes, a chilling scene.

I thought the paper was probably from the school concerning the pencil-throwing incident which told her the boy had lied.

B's the lawyer here but my (strictly layman's) guess is that efficacy of the technique has little or nothing to do with it. A parent can make their child wear lavender jammies or walk on the treadmill for no reason at all. As BC mentions, everyone needs water to live yet you can make a kid drink water til they die. The issue will revolve around pain, physical injury and/or mental torment. The simple truths seem to be: yes, she's out of control (probably along with tens of millions of mothers world-wide); hot sauce is a food item served in thousands of restaurants and countless more groceries; she's escalating (maybe with nowhere to go next); the child is at least momentarily terrified and opinions are divided as to whether there is any lasting damage to the child.

Oh, I missed whether anyone particularly thinks the cold shower is "abuse". B mentions it but most seem focused on the hot sauce. That sounded like where he screamed and was discomforted more than through the hot sauce incident.

[BC]

I thought the paper was probably from the school concerning the pencil-throwing incident which told her the boy had lied.

........

Oh, I missed whether anyone particularly thinks the cold shower is "abuse". B mentions it but most seem focused on the hot sauce. That sounded like where he screamed and was discomforted more than through the hot sauce incident.

ECOCKS,

Could well be that the paper was from the school, but if you look closely, she seemed to be referring to it each time she stated, or better yet yelled her assertions.

Is there a difference between hot sauce, cold shower or a switch or hand?  I don't think so.  They are all physical measures that cause pain and discomfort.  Sure hot sauce and shower don't leave physical scars but that's about the only difference.  Regular use of hot sauce might also cause some physical damage.  An interesting quote below:

But be careful. Capsaicin can also be harmful. Take a lot of it, and you can actually send your body into shock. Research on capsaicin's bad side is still in the early stages, but scientists have found that it can cause some tough side effects: abnormal blood clotting, blistering of the skin and severe diarrhea. Long-term use can lead to kidney and liver damage, so go easy.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/01/theres-more-to-hot-sauce-than-just.html

I did note that at least she allowed him to spit it out after burning his taste buds.  She kept her supply in the bathroom so would say it's for long term use.

She's probably not a bad mother at heart, but instead a mother doing bad things out of desperation.  Haven't a clue as to what her motivation was to go on the show in the first place..  to show everyone how well her punishment system works?

[Doll]

This case in on morning news today, sounds like Jessica was charged    last week (child abuse).

[BC]

This case in on morning news today, sounds like Jessica was charged    last week (child abuse).

Just an interesting aside..

As far as I know there are no laws against being a bad mother or father for that matter, there are only laws against abuse.

[Doll]

As far as I know there are no laws against being a bad mother or father for that matter, there are only laws against abuse.

Not sure if I understood it  (abuse in conducted by people) but here it is
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-sauce-mom-jessica-beagley-charged-child-abuse/story?id=12796871

[BC]

Another interesting factor is that the family adopted twins, one of which she seems to have bonded with, the other (the child being punished) not.  

Naturally, one feels loved, the other not, one gets 'good' attention while the other 'bad'.  Add the factor of possible sibling rivalry and you have quite a mix.

Beagley tells McGraw she berates Kristoff because he "is a chronic liar."

"He lies about most everything," she says. "He's been caught a number of times stealing food. Kristoff steals, not because he's hungry, but because he sees it, and he wants it. At my very lowest point, I thought that maybe it was a mistake to adopt the boys, but we have them now, and I'm not sending them back. So we just have to learn how to deal with them."

http://www.parentdish.com/2011/01/31/mom-in-hot-water-after-admitting-she-forced-son-to-drink-hot-sau/

Starved for attention and doing anything possible to get it, regardless of consequences.

The family belongs in therapy, not in court.

[GQBlues]

LOL. A Russian delegate came to the Beagley's home to investigate because of the media attention the video generated. Fearing the worst, the delegate left feeling impressed (and relieved) that they are in fact, a very good family and commended the children for their behavior and state.

" Good people caught in a bad situation!"

So c'mon folks, you may go home now, there's nothing to see here. No dead body in the freezer found, etc...Dr Phil thanks all the gullible people in the world. Yeppers. Sensationalized big time. I bet folks, especially Boethius, are disappointed the Russian delegate didn't find more trashy stories, blood, guts, and sex videos in their home to toss around. Oh well, next time, eh?.....

If Mrs. Beagley diciplinesKristoff again, use Listerine mouthwash instead of Tabasco, this way at least she can get rid of gingivitis in his mouth.

FTR - she didn't make him 'drink' the tangy hot sauce. She made him hold it in his mouth for a minute. The media keeps saying otherwise. Must be Canadian reporters, lol.

[Boethius]

It is irrelevant whether Cristoph is forced to drink the hot sauce or not.  Putting it in his mouth is abuse.  So is forcing him to stand under a cold shower.

The boy received a card for misbehaviour at school.  He wasn't being punished for that, but for lying about it to his mother.  Well, duh.  If the potential consequence is as described, of course he will lie.  Further, the school has already dealt with this, discipline wise.

The mother is seen screaming at the child.  That is not discipline.  It is the mother's poor reactions, and she will never get the response she needs.

[ECOCKS]

The reactions of the diplomat and the situation with the second child are both interesting aspects of this situation. Kudos to the diplomat for not jumping on it and trying to turn it into some symbol of evil. There are some rational people in the Russian structure it appears.

We have billions of parents in the world. They will run the gamut from candidates for sainthood to convicted drug-dealer pedophiles. Establishing standards for preventing physical and mental injuries and catching that lower extreme are legitimate jobs for government and police but we can't arrest every out of control parent and put them in jail unless we are going to takeover Australia and re-establish a penal colony to hold them.

My guess is that at worst she'll get ordered to take counseling/parenting sessions and Child Services will do a few visits over the next few years.

[Boethius]

Charging an abusive parent, and putting him/her "in the system", though, ensures there can be follow up, so that the offending behaviour is not repeated.

[GQBlues]

It is irrelevant whether Cristoph is forced to drink the hot sauce or not.  Putting it in his mouth is abuse.  So is forcing him to stand under a cold shower.

The boy received a card for misbehaviour at school.  He wasn't being punished for that, but for lying about it to his mother.  Well, duh.  If the potential consequence is as described, of course he will lie.  Further, the school has already dealt with this, discipline wise.

The mother is seen screaming at the child.  That is not discipline.  It is the mother's poor reactions, and she will never get the response she needs.

Boethius-

I have no doubt you're a darn good mumski, a decent global citizen....but sometimes you really need to see through the lens a bit more objectively. We can all agree we can easily differentiate what right is from wrong. Especially when we're looking inside from the sane confines of an observer.

Bottom line is, you have absolutely NO CLUE what it takes to adopt a Russian boy from Russia who MORE THAN LIKELY have serious behavioral issues at best, damaged at worst.

Strictly based on your over-the-top, knee-jerk reaction you've shown on this thread directed at American families/society adopting kids from Russia, DESPITE the ALMOST 100% rate of success under the undoubtedly challenging experience of caring for these children; your quick negative reactionary personality leaves me no doubt that if put in the same situation some of these mumski go through, you'll likely don a baby seal custome to any of these kids and make them walk around the Canadian neighborhoods. SLOWLY.

These kids need help - from everyone. Recognize the slim chance that MAYBE caring for these kids at their very early stages of life would do great wonders with their development on Baby Houses 1 through 10s.

PERIOD.

[Doll]

It is irrelevant whether Cristoph is forced to drink the hot sauce or not.  Putting it in his mouth is abuse.  So is forcing him to stand under a cold shower.

The boy received a card for misbehaviour at school.  He wasn't being punished for that, but for lying about it to his mother.  Well, duh.  If the potential consequence is as described, of course he will lie.  Further, the school has already dealt with this, discipline wise.

The mother is seen screaming at the child.  That is not discipline.  It is the mother's poor reactions, and she will never get the response she needs.

Agree.

[Boethius]

GQ, first, I've already noted that the overwhelming majority of Russian adoptees in the US are not abused.

But, why is it that we don't hear similar stories of abuse emanating from EU countries where Russian children are adopted?  Are those children somehow less damaged than those adopted in the U.S.?  In most of the cases of abuse in the U.S., most of the children were toddlers, unable to communicate their wants (hence, more likely to have temper tantrums), and very vulnerable.

In this case, the woman had four children already, and chose to adopt twins.  One twin is compliant, the other is not.  The reaction is the reaction of the adult, and is not for the benefit of the child.  It is up to the adult to determine the best way to reach the child, and never will abuse be an effective way to discipline a child.  This mother's reactions indicate a failure of the adult to parent, rather than any deficiency in the child.  She also seems to be concerned with others' views, so the boy is an extension of her, rather than a separate human being who needs guidance.

Look, all of this particular child's "egregious" behaviour was within the range of normal.  There is nothing the mother described which is even all that bad.  He just sounds like a spirited child.  "Stealing" food (that description by the mother is very telling - how does a child "steal" food in his own home???) is likely because of being in an orphanage, where food is likely limited.

My children, like all children, were not perfect angels.  My boys were, in fact, very spirited.  So was my daughter, in a different way.  One of my sons was difficult at Christoph's age, and earlier.  Based on the behaviours the mother described here, he was, in fact, far, far more difficult than this child. He was, and is, extremely intelligent, extremely curious, and could climb anything from about 18 months.  Three cards at school?  There were times I would have been thrilled with that.  In the second grade, I was glad he was so intelligent, because he spent more time sitting outside the classroom door than he actually did in class.  One time, when he was just under 2, my husband called from work.  I turned my head and literally, in less than a minute, he had managed to silently drag a chair to a kitchen cupboard where I kept a basket of candy, just out of the kids' reach.  All of a sudden I heard a crash, and saw him hanging by his hands six feet in the air, his little legs dangling in the air, with a tipped over chair and a basket of treats on the floor.  I went over, lifted him, put him on the floor, picked up the chair and the treats.  I didn't scold him.  But I did tell him if he wanted a treat, he should ask me.  There was the time he decided to split wood with an ax (at 4), the time he shot his laptop screen, in error, while goofing around with an air gun (which had not been locked, but was put away, and he knew he wasn't supposed to take them unsupervised, age 9), and I could go on and on.

Another time, also when my husband was at work, I was putting laundry in the linen closet.  I came back down the stairs, and my two year old (the above described's brother) was not in the family room, where he'd been literally, 2 minutes before.  I looked through the house.  I went outside in the backyard, where his siblings were playing. The door was locked, and he couldn't get out.  The garage was locked and closed.  I was in a panic, but thought somehow, he must have got out of the house.  I found him naked, halfway down the block with the garage remote in his hand.  He had managed to open my van door, take the garage remote out of it, open and close the garage door in that time, and he had the presence of mind to take the remote with him, so that he could get back into the house when it suited him.

Those are just the stories I laughed at, both at the time, and now.  I could give you tons more.  But at no time did I hit my children, discipline them with tabasco, cold showers, shaving their heads, making them wear girls' clothing, etc.  In fact, they didn't even get time outs.  I always waited until I calmed down, and spoke to them calmly.  I used to grit my teeth, literally, and at bed time, I would calmly talk to them about their behaviour, and why what they did was inappropriate.  Dealing with it in the moment would have been counter productive.  Speaking to them, at an age appropriate level (once they reached 3) was far more effective.  

Children do things because they are exploring, and don't necessarily see that what they are doing is wrong/dangerous, etc.

Now, my older boy is a perfectly behaved, responsible and polite young teen (his last "transgression" was about a year ago) who just matured very suddenly.  My younger boy also is calm.  He actually is almost never disciplined, although I do need to watch that he gets his homework done.