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

[GQBlues]

Boethius-

1. Transparency always have it's price. In the US, there are multiple layers of governments, laws, regulations, all in addition to NGOs, special interests, etc...all domestic issues are constantly challenged, discussed, debated, tried, convicted, etc...The US had MADD, VAWA, etc...before anyone in the world even knew what they stood for.

Heck, in addition, this show (Dr P, Oprah,Springer,etc) easily shows you - people and corporations search out these little devious stories in our societies because it proves to be a 'profitable' venture for reality TV.

Child abuse is just one example.

It wasn't too long ago even the Vatican itself was exposed of condoning child molestation amongst its priesthood. Prior to that, it was a beacon of high morality, no? Heck, Canada never nationalized their child abuse recordation until 2001. Why? Were these not a 'national' concern?

Surely if we simply based our realities on what we can Google on the internet, is it really sane to assume that Russia, Somalia, Cuba, etc...heck even Canada - are beacons of proper child rearing especially compared to USA?

2. Based on your perspective, and that of many, Mrs. Beagley is not worthy of motherhood. Fair enough. A Russian delegate went to visit their home and personally MET and witness these people and interestingly enough his perspective of this woman and the family in which she mothers - is a complete opposite of yours.

Thus you judge her simply based on the video you've seen and I judge you simply based on your words on this thread.

Life is pretty darn simple, Boethius. You will get what you put into it - sooner than later. You can cite hundreds, thousands of fairy tale stories about your storied status as a mother to your children, fine. Bottom line is, your children are NOT adopted from these Russian orphanages. You've raised, loved and cared for them since birth. These orphans are left alone in cribs inside a room alone as infants for 20 hours everyday until they're old enough to be transferred to another stage of care fit for cattle ranching.

You should try it if you really want a taste of reality. Adopt a Russian orphan.

FWIW

[BC]

GQ,

Not to beat a dead horse, but back here: http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12984.msg256664#msg256664 you called out to bring facts to the table.

Then I am enlightened BC. But give me hard facts. Not a newspaper article written in the aftermath of the April 2010 incident. After all, I gave you DOS information when you asked for one.

Although things are a bit distracted now over hot sauce, I was able to put some rather interesting figures together in this post http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12984.msg256664#msg256664 near the top page 10 addressing the rate of domestic adopted child killings vs the cases from RU.

I was kinda hoping you, or someone else would find fault with my rusty math and results which do give a bit of weight to Boethius's statement:

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.?  

Quid pro quo?

btw I do believe in the realities of life, even that majority good can outweigh the bad, but as you point out systemic problems in RU as contributing factors with difficult children (and I agree), that is not what killed these kids... or is it?

[Boethius]

I've already had a taste of reality.  The only difference between biological children and adoptees is the time required to integrate them into a family and more patience because they will have more setbacks.  But, most of them get counselling as well.   Further, in the particular case highlighted in this thread, none of the behaviours described was particularly naughty, let alone evidence of some mental deficiency in the child.

The stories of all the "problems" with Russian orphans are overblown.  Yes, some of them do have issues.  But the majority of them do not, or alternately, the adoptive parents have faced the issues remarkably well.  Certainly, the child highlighted in this case did not have such issues.  I know a woman in Minn. who adopted three children (American), common mother, now in jail, three different fathers (two of the children are mixed race), and two of the fathers are now dead.  Each had issues, including the "common" "reactive attachment disorder" but different issues.  One was aggressive and defiant.  One refused to be potty trained and acted out.  The third, the middle child, internalized everything.  The family had intensive counselling, and dealt with each setback until it was resolved.  She was frustrated and exhausted.  But she always showed them love.  Now, six years later, all the kids are blooming.  

Parenting is not for wusses.  Parenting children who had less than normal beginnings in this world is even more difficult.  But the answer is not in abuse.  I think the real issue here is not with the children, but with parents who are likely well meaning, but not ready for the rigours they will have to endure.  

In the case that is the subject matter of this thread, we don't know what happened since Dr. Phil's show was aired.  Perhaps, once audience members and Dr. Phil called this mother an abuser, and pointed out what she was doing was counter productive, she sought help.  Perhaps, if all those other families facing trouble sought help, they too, would later be viewed as model families.

[GQBlues]

GQ,

Not to beat a dead horse, but back here:

Yup. Facts coming from Russian authorities supported by the state-controlled media. Cute.

Parenting is not for wusses.  Parenting children who had less than normal beginnings in this world is even more difficult.  But the answer is not in abuse.  *I think the real issue here is not with the children*, but with parents who are likely well meaning, but not ready for the rigours they will have to endure.

 

I disagree to much more than a passing extent. The real issue is abandoning these infants to begin with, and then having the authorities subject them to improper care. In my eyes, THOSE PARENTS/MOTHERS are the ones at fault. Every darn single one of them.

In the report I posted on this thread, it is widely know the budgetary monies delegated for these orphans. You cannot possibly convince me these figure is ample enough for proper child care especially during their MOST fragile days of life.

[Boethius]

I disagree to much more than a passing extent. The real issue is abandoning these infants to begin with, and then having the authorities subject them to improper care. In my eyes, THOSE PARENTS/MOTHERS are the ones at fault. Every darn single one of them.

In the report I posted on this thread, it is widely know the budgetary monies delegated for these orphans. You cannot possibly convince me these figure is ample enough for proper child care especially during their MOST fragile days of life.

I don't disagree with any of that.  But its doesn't mean the children should be subject to abuse, either domestically or internationally.

[Blues Fairy]

I disagree to much more than a passing extent. The real issue is abandoning these infants to begin with, and then having the authorities subject them to improper care. In my eyes, THOSE PARENTS/MOTHERS are the ones at fault. Every darn single one of them.

What are those parents/mothers at fault for, exactly, the hot sauce or the cold shower?

You make it sound like the disciplinary measures used by Jessica were the ONLY possible treatment for the boy who steals and lies.  I beg to differ.  I think the woman has clear sadistic tendencies and it shows in the clip (I should know, I lived with a parent like that, and took the first opportunity to escape).  This is NOT good parenting, it's the behavior of a dissolute, selfish, sadistic person who has no control over herself and has no regrets about keeping her kid in terror.   As I understand, she turned to the TV show not to learn how not to hurt the kid, but how to MAKE the kid more compliant.  I did not see any signs of distress for the sake of the boy; just for her own sake.  I was thoroughly disgusted and I hope they take the boy from her.  

[BC]

Yup. Facts coming from Russian authorities supported by the state-controlled media. Cute.
 

Quite obvious you did not even try.. All sources were good 'ol US..

Oh well.. I tried.

[GQBlues]

What are those parents/mothers at fault for, exactly, the hot sauce or the cold shower?

No, worst. Child abandonement for starters....

You make it sound like the disciplinary measures used by Jessica were the ONLY possible treatment for the boy who steals and lies.  I beg to differ.

So would I. I never danced around with that sentiment at anytime in this thread. If you want to check my post pertaining to this matter, feel free to do so, they still stand as posted.

I think the woman has clear sadistic tendencies and it shows in the clip (I should know, I lived with a parent like that, and took the first opportunity to escape).

So did I although I also always considered even as a child that the people that did overly punished me were caretakers, not my biological parents, which were subjected under extreme social pressures of their own. I realize it'll never be an excuse, but hey even I as a child at least can take that into consideration.

If I ever told you what I experienced as a child, in comparison to what we saw on this video, you'd easily think Kristoff had it fairly easy.

This is NOT good parenting, it's the behavior of a dissolute, selfish, sadistic person who has no control over herself and has no regrets about keeping her kid in terror.

More than likely, but that opinion is still confined in the made-for-TV clip. After all, stupid as it is, the recording of that video was planned albeit differently than intended.

As I understand, she turned to the TV show not to learn how not to hurt the kid, but how to MAKE the kid more compliant.  I did not see any signs of distress for the sake of the boy; just for her own sake.  I was thoroughly disgusted and I hope they take the boy from her.  

I would hazard a guess that beyond the video and likely based on what people can actually see, including that of the Russian delegate specially sent to investigate; things seem to be have a different blend than what we're all confined to watch on that video.

Was it cruel? For me it was. Is she a cruel person to her kids, honestly I do not know because I do not know her, their lives, their kids, etc...

Is spanking/beating a child with a belt, or any other form of punishment somehow a 'preferred' method of parenting? Would it had been better if the child was instead fed with Brussel Sprouts (yuck - talk about abuse), or made to gargle with Listerine instead? (IMO that's 'hotter' to me)?

Like I said, we can mostly agree with defining good from bad. But to paint the entire program of child adoption, especially that of Americans, simply because they're Americans, with such a negative broad brush is just as neglectful of reality.

[Blues Fairy]

Like I said, we can mostly agree with defining good from bad. But to paint the entire program of child adoption, especially that of Americans, simply because they're Americans, with such a negative broad brush is just as neglectful of reality.

I agree with this part but I fail to see why you have to doubt the case of child abuse in this particular case of Kristof in order to back the above statement.

Yes it is child abuse; no doubt about that.   But no, it is not the reason to blame or suspend the entire adoption system.  Enough said.

[Misha]

Heck, Canada never nationalized their child abuse recordation until 2001. Why? Were these not a 'national' concern?

Let's see, Canada is a Confederation and our constitution, the British North America Act of 1867 specifies that certain areas of jurisdiction are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and family and social services fall under provincial jurisdiction. As such, the role of the Federal government would be limited to collating provincial data and the problem is that the definitions of abuse varied slightly from province to province. Provinces, generally speaking, are loathe to let the federal government infringe in any way on their constitutionally protected areas of jurisdiction, so the federal authorities are somewhat limited in what they can do. 

[Doll]

 

 

 
 

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

 

[GQBlues]

I agree with this part but I fail to see why you have to doubt the case of child abuse in this particular case of Kristof in order to back the above statement.

Doubt?!? No, not based on what I saw on the video.

But the fact is there's a due process currently on this matter and whether or not *I* personally believe it's abuse has no bearing to what the law ultimately decides it is. Jessica is charged and is awaiting trial. That was my point. e.g. The People vs O.J. Simpson...

[GQBlues]

Let's see, Canada is a Confederation and our constitution, the British North America Act of 1867 specifies that certain areas of jurisdiction are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and family and social services fall under provincial jurisdiction. As such, the role of the Federal government would be limited to collating provincial data and the problem is that the definitions of abuse varied slightly from province to province. Provinces, generally speaking, are loathe to let the federal government infringe in any way on their constitutionally protected areas of jurisdiction, so the federal authorities are somewhat limited in what they can do.  

And somehow you believe the individual states in our Union does not have it's own constitution and jurisdiction? The latest events in Arizona, SC, and Florida today should at least give rise to this fact...

However, as a collective society, we had in fact constituted to a higher authority to safeguard our overall sovereignty.

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison

[Misha]

And somehow you believe the individual states in our Union does not have it's own constitution and jurisdiction? The latest events in Arizona, SC, and Florida today should at least give rise to this fact...

However, as a collective society, we had in fact constituted to a higher authority to safeguard our overall sovereignty.

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison

And how are child welfare laws connected to "overall sovereignty"? You have your laws, we have ours; you have your constitution, we have ours. Our constitution gives provinces jurisdiction over family and child welfare and provincial legislatures are elected and the voters are capable of educating themselves and getting the knowledge they need to vote...

[GQBlues]

And how are child welfare laws connected to "overall sovereignty"?

I was hopeful an explanation wasn't necessary. A universal law, and in this case Federal, governing all 50 states as to exacting definition of child abuse, or in the case of Canada, maltreatment. This way, there won't be a situation where one state's definition of child abuse differ from another. Like the example I had already given to Boethius earlier in this thread, a child hit with a baseball bat upside the head will be child abuse in ALL 50 states.

I know in Canada, that's not quite the case, hence national recordation of compiled child abuse cases, in totality, is likely dubious at best.

[Boethius]

Actually, child abuse is defined in Canada under the Criminal Code, which is a federal statute.

[BC]

Laws rarely can address all aspects of life, that's why we have courts to make socially acceptable determinations whether or not a transgression has taken place.

I much prefer to view such as a 'disease'. Kids aren't born with an instruction manual, but parents should have enough common sense to seek help when things get 'out of hand' and learn to use a different set of tools to get the job done.

The symptoms in this family indicate the possibility of disease, which if left untreated will only get worse.

Really, the last place this particular family needs to be right now is in court.  Courts should be the last resort when all else fails, or the evidence so overwhelming that immediate action is needed, which is really not the case here.  They should be seeking professional help instead. Unfortunately many families in trouble do not seek help believing that doing so would label them as unfit, or are using the same ineffective toolbox passed on generation to generation and really don't know better until things get really bad.

Society has a responsibility to make it easier for parents to get the help they need, but seems to have delegated that task to the courts.

Some consider her appearance on the show was a cry for help.. If so, it certainly worked.. in ways she may not have expected.  Chances of this family putting things back in order are probably quite good now

[Misha]

Actually, child abuse is defined in Canada under the Criminal Code, which is a federal statute.

Yes, but the agencies and social workers responsible for children are all provincial. The RCMP will be called in if charges are to be laid, but in British Columbia, for example, the agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of children are under provincial authority and guided by provincial legislation: Child, Family and Community Service Act. Child protection services are a provincial responsibility, not federal. The legislation, for example, authorizing child protection services to remove a child from a home if abuse is suspected is provincial, not federal. If a child is removed and someone is later charged with child abuse, only then will the federal statutes apply.

[Misha]

Like the example I had already given to Boethius earlier in this thread, a child hit with a baseball bat upside the head will be child abuse in ALL 50 states.

I know in Canada, that's not quite the case, hence national recordation of compiled child abuse cases, in totality, is likely dubious at best.

Yes, and a child being hit with a baseball bat would warrant that child being removed from their families by child protection services in all 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada  Your example is, frankly, nonsensical IMHO. 

You are confusing the "recordation" (sic) of child abuse statistics with the practices of child protection services and the places where lines are drawn in cases that are ambiguous.

To help you understand, I will give you a case that has nothing to do with child abuse, the legal age when one can drink. All the states, and all the provinces and all the territories are pretty much in agreement that minors should not be out drinking in bars or elsewhere. However, the actual age will vary from one place to another. In Alberta, unless the legislation has changed, the legal drinking age is 18, while in other provinces it is 19 and in the United States it is 21 from what I gather. Consequently, it would be illogical to gather "national" statistics on the occurrence of illegal drinking of 18-year-old youth in Canada as not all the provinces consider it illegal for the aforementioned 18-year-old youth to drink and it would be even more illogical to expect Canada to conform to American standards and expect that young adults should not be drinking until the age of 21 as it is illegal in your country.

What this means in the case of child protection services is that the practices of different agencies in different provinces and territories may differ slightly as they are being guided by different acts and regulations that are under the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial and territorial legislatures. They will agree that children shouldn't be beaten with baseball bats, but the age and the length of time, for example, that a child may be left alone at home without adult supervision may vary, for example, from province to province.

[Boethius]

Yes, but the agencies and social workers responsible for children are all provincial. The RCMP will be called in if charges are to be laid, but in British Columbia, for example, the agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of children are under provincial authority and guided by provincial legislation: Child, Family and Community Service Act. Child protection services are a provincial responsibility, not federal. The legislation, for example, authorizing child protection services to remove a child from a home if abuse is suspected is provincial, not federal. If a child is removed and someone is later charged with child abuse, only then will the federal statutes apply.

I am fully aware of the delineation of powers.  My point was that anyone charged with abuse is charged under a federal, not a provincial statute.

[Misha]

I am fully aware of the delineation of powers.  My point was that anyone charged with abuse is charged under a federal, not a provincial statute.

Yes, but not all cases of abuse and neglect lead to arrest and charges being laid. Consequently, the keeping of "national" records is problematic as the agencies investigating most cases of alleged child abuse would be provincial and territorial.

[GQBlues]

Yes, and a child being hit with a baseball bat would warrant that child being removed from their families by child protection services in all 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada   Your example is, frankly, nonsensical IMHO.

It was nonsensical because you didn't quote the entire text. Then to make it even worst, in your attempt to keep yourself from looking foolish, you went in a roundabout way to try and tell me something you believed I didn't already know...

"...I was hopeful an explanation wasn't necessary. A universal law, and in this case Federal, governing all 50 states as to exacting definition of child abuse, or in the case of Canada, maltreatment. *This way, there won't be a situation where one state's definition of child abuse differ from another.* Like the example I had already given to Boethius earlier in this thread, a child hit with a baseball bat upside the head will be child abuse in ALL 50 states.

I know in Canada, that's not quite the case, hence national recordation of compiled child abuse cases, in totality, is likely dubious at best...."

I had previously mentioned (to Boethius) in this thread that the 'bat' was a bad example but used simply for the exercise.

In the US, our federal legislation had set the standard at a minimum to all states, despite each individual state having their own constitution and jurisdiction, to use as guidelines in identifying child abuse and child neglect.

Such was/is not so in Canada. Thus Canada's 'national' child maltreatment statistics/records, in totality, is dubious at best. Gumby, the boy hit with the bat on one side of the head is considered a victim of child abuse on one province while not so on another.

Which is why I gave you...

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

You may now continue to argue with yourself.

[Boethius]

Such was/is not so in Canada. Thus Canada's 'national' child maltreatment statistics/records, in totality, is dubious at best. Gumby, the boy hit with the bat on one side of the head is considered a victim of child abuse on one province while not so on another.

I'm quite certain a child hit with a bat would be considered a victim of child abuse in every province.  The perpetrator also would face criminal charges in every province.

I would also hazard a guess, without a review, that the enabling legislation allowing the Crown to remove a child from a parent's custody is fairly uniform from province to province.

[Misha]

Again, this may be difficult for an American to understand, but other countries do things differently, and in some cases they do it differently AND better.

In Canada, the Federal government can't set standards if it is a constitutionally protected area of provincial competence.

As for the investigation of child abuse, you are seemingly asserting as fact that the provinces do a worse job in protecting our children than the United States yet you provide no evidence to back it up.

PS. The you in question is GQ.

[Daveman]

I'm quite certain a child hit with a bat would be considered a victim of child abuse in every province.  The perpetrator also would face criminal charges in every province.

...

And depending upon the species, I guess it could also be double charge of child/animal abuse!  (ah the dangers for inaudible squeakers everywhere!)