Parents return adoptive child to Russia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many white families that would adopt and Asian child would never consider adopting a black child.

What about the reverse? Would a black family want to adopt a white child?
The truth is, you do not know the motivations.

But, going along with what you say, I don't see the problem. People adopting -many of them- likely cannot conceive and would like a child that looks like them. There is no crime or ethical problem in that. I have a biological child and have never been in those shoes. Who am I to judge that sort of choice? Who are you to judge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the boy was legally adopted and the adoption was complete, wouldn't he be an American citizen? Can someone put an American minor citizen on a plane to a foreign country with no return? Would he retain this citzenship? Just curious?

Nope, he is not an American citizen. He or anyone else that is adopted internationally can become a citizen when when they reach 18 years and choose to do so.

It is my understanding that the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 actually makes adopted children American citizens when they meet the following criteria:

The child must meet the following requirements:

Have at least one American citizen parent by birth or naturalization;

Be under 18 years of age;

Live in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent; and

Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence.

In addition, if the child is adopted, the adoption must be full and final.

Perhaps in the case you cited, the adoption took place many years ago prior to the CCA. I know when I was adopted internationally 34 years ago, I did not have to wait until I was 18 to become a citizen, though I did have to wait the standard amt of time (for back then) to become naturalized. And having just finalized my own daughter's international adoption late last year, I can assure you she was indeed made a citizen upon said finalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many white families that would adopt and Asian child would never consider adopting a black child.

What about the reverse? Would a black family want to adopt a white child?
The truth is, you do not know the motivations.

But, going along with what you say, I don't see the problem. People adopting -many of them- likely cannot conceive and would like a child that looks like them. There is no crime or ethical problem in that. I have a biological child and have never been in those shoes. Who am I to judge that sort of choice? Who are you to judge?

Most services would not allow a black family to adopt a white child. Nothing in writing, but probably would not be allowed.

[Anonymous]

Why is everyone claiming that race must be the "real" reason for international adoptions avoiding the very real fear that people may have about the ability of birth parent in the US having or in the future obtaining rights regarding their birth child that would not likely be granted to foreign birth parents with respect to their children. I've been considering placing several embryos for "adoption" and understand very clearly that potential adopting families are very concerned about expanded rights of both adopted children (including embryos) and birth parents in the US. I'm wondering if the people who claim to know the "real" reasons for other people's complex, personal assume racism at every turn in other parts of their lives as well. If so, I'm not sure which is worse, an improper assumption of racism in strangers, or the fact that we live in a culture with such a history (and sadly present) prevalence of racism that people might make these assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many white families that would adopt and Asian child would never consider adopting a black child.

What about the reverse? Would a black family want to adopt a white child?
The truth is, you do not know the motivations.

But, going along with what you say, I don't see the problem. People adopting -many of them- likely cannot conceive and would like a child that looks like them. There is no crime or ethical problem in that. I have a biological child and have never been in those shoes. Who am I to judge that sort of choice? Who are you to judge?

Most services would not allow a black family to adopt a white child. Nothing in writing, but probably would not be allowed.

Thanks. You just made the PP's 23:55 point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone claiming that race must be the "real" reason for international adoptions avoiding the very real fear that people may have about the ability of birth parent in the US having or in the future obtaining rights regarding their birth child that would not likely be granted to foreign birth parents with respect to their children. I've been considering placing several embryos for "adoption" and understand very clearly that potential adopting families are very concerned about expanded rights of both adopted children (including embryos) and birth parents in the US. I'm wondering if the people who claim to know the "real" reasons for other people's complex, personal assume racism at every turn in other parts of their lives as well. If so, I'm not sure which is worse, an improper assumption of racism in strangers, or the fact that we live in a culture with such a history (and sadly present) prevalence of racism that people might make these assumptions.

These are generalizations, we know. That said, on a case by case basis it might be true. I can also imagine that some families don't want the constant attention that comes from being a multiracial family. That does not really explain the possible preference for Asian girls over African American girls and boys. My sister is adopting from Canada, and they have been told that getting and African American baby (from the US) is the easiest thing. She started the process 6 months ago, and her lawyers say that she will have a child by summer, no big expenses. Birth mothers only want reciprocal access at age 18.

[Anonymous]

As someone who considered adoption, I think there may be more to it than race. With domestic adoptions, the birth parents choose the adoptive parents. This means that people who want to adopt have to "sell" themselves as good parents in a way that seemed uncomfortable to me - plus there is always the danger that no one will choose you. This may not be true if you do foster to adopt, but that has it's own complications. With international adoptions, you have to jump through a lot of hoops, but you don't have to try to get a birth parent to choose you over another family. That said, adoption in general is a long and expensive road in the U.S. There is no such thing as "just adopt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the boy was legally adopted and the adoption was complete, wouldn't he be an American citizen? Can someone put an American minor citizen on a plane to a foreign country with no return? Would he retain this citzenship? Just curious?

Nope, he is not an American citizen. He or anyone else that is adopted internationally can become a citizen when they reach 18 years and choose to do so.

There was a case a while back of a brazilian boy that was adopted and after turning 18 didn't start the process for citizenship and after committing a crime they wanted to send him back to "his" country, but according to Brazil's law he was no longer a brazilian citizen and they didn't want to accept him and didn't let him get off the airplane.

You are giving entirely incorrect information. Adopted children can come into the United States with automatic citizenship if they enter on a I-3 visa. Such a visa grants automatic citiznenship. However, if the adopted child enters the U.S. on an I-4 visa, the AP must do a readoption in the U.S. and then the child receives a new birth certificate. The parents can then get a U.S. passport and change the SSN as a U.S. citizen. Parents are ighly encouraged however to obtain a COC for the child.

The story you reference occured many years before the adoption laws were changed repeatedly.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I think most, if not all, Russian adoptees are issued I-3 visas, as the APs have met the child prior to passing Russian court for adoption.

[Anonymous]

A PP here. Birth parents' rights, even if currently only after the child turns 18, are a big deal! It adds a level of complexity to an already very complex set of relationships. If I were adopting, I would want to do everything in my power (including adopting a non-US child) to avoid the birth parents having the ability to decide (even to a limited extent) if and how they are involved in my child's life. I would want for my child to have the option of following up with birth parents (including, of course, ones located abroad) at an appropriate age, but I don't want the unknown of someone approaching my child or us with a stack of rights. I just don't think that US law (and the direction it is going in this regard) is sufficient to give me comfort that the law will always treat my child as being exclusively mine. Giving a child for adoption is an incredibly hard decision, but in my view it is a final decision, and gives adoptive parent exclusive parental rights. Anything that infringes on that would have me looking elsewhere to adopt.

[Anonymous]

On a different note, the Hansen woman in the Russian adoption was attempting to adopt another child from the Republic of Georgia. Hope they deny her request.

Also, the police investigating her case stated on the news this morning that Hansen never called the police or social services regarding danger, fear or violent tendencies from the child. Moreover, during Hansen's latest post adoption report with the agency of Feb/March 2010, Hansen reported that everything was well with the child and they were bonding. So, if all this is to be true, this is very complexing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard this on the radio this morning and knew there would be a post.

I have to say I'm a bit torn. It sounds horrible at face value. But if you read some of the articles, the grandmother (who appeared to be the caregiver during the day) was fearful that the kid would harm the family. The boy was found setting things on fire and had a hit list that included family members. I'd like to think I'd never, ever return an adopted child - but would I let a family member be in constant danger?

According to the grandmother, the agency lied to the family. They did not foreclose the boy's emotional problems. I mean, it's one thing to realize you are going to have some attachment issues with an older child. It's another to fear for your life. There have been other stories of returned children. The stories always start out making the parents look evil, and then it turns out the child has some horrible mental problems which a lot of people couldn't deal with.

What I did find bizarre and where I think this entire thing went wrong is that the adoption agency was not notified until the boy showed up. But I'm not sure the grandmother knew this - she was being told what to do by a lawyer, maybe she thought the lawyer told the agency. Although, it's unclear why she wouldn't have just dealt with the agency themselves.

She did hire someone to escort the child, a lot of media is making it sound like she just dropped the kid off at the airport and said "good luck".

So overall, I can have some understanding of why the child was returned, I just think it could have been handled differently.

I agree with this post.

Also, maybe the lawyer told them to handle it this way. Maybe if a family member escorted him to Russia the agency would have denied thier attempt to "return" him.

I can't believe someone would go to all the trouble and expense to adopt and then just send the child back for NO reason. I have to believe there must have been some serious safety concerns.

All that said, it is very sad and very irresponsible of them to have handled it the way they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone claiming that race must be the "real" reason for international adoptions avoiding the very real fear that people may have about the ability of birth parent in the US having or in the future obtaining rights regarding their birth child that would not likely be granted to foreign birth parents with respect to their children. I've been considering placing several embryos for "adoption" and understand very clearly that potential adopting families are very concerned about expanded rights of both adopted children (including embryos) and birth parents in the US. I'm wondering if the people who claim to know the "real" reasons for other people's complex, personal assume racism at every turn in other parts of their lives as well. If so, I'm not sure which is worse, an improper assumption of racism in strangers, or the fact that we live in a culture with such a history (and sadly present) prevalence of racism that people might make these assumptions.

These are generalizations, we know. That said, on a case by case basis it might be true. I can also imagine that some families don't want the constant attention that comes from being a multiracial family. That does not really explain the possible preference for Asian girls over African American girls and boys. My sister is adopting from Canada, and they have been told that getting and African American baby (from the US) is the easiest thing. She started the process 6 months ago, and her lawyers say that she will have a child by summer, no big expenses. Birth mothers only want reciprocal access at age 18.

I could be making a generalization. But it was like my friends and I would look on online dating sites and swear that guys would say they would date every race - Pacific Islander, Asian, Hispanic etc. EXCEPT black. Other people would say - oh no you are imagining things. Then finally I was vindicated by an article in Time Magazine www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963768,00.html
So anyway, I don't doubt that race plays into it for some people when it comes to adoption but I wouldn't say it does for everyone. I think there is the idea with a Russian adoption that a family wants to adopt a white child because there are lots of other places like China, Latin America, Haiti etc. where a family could also adopt a child and I could be wrong but I didn't think Russia was that much closer, cheaper, quicker, more kids available to adopt etc. than all the other places.

[Anonymous]

China babies come with a form saying no returns or money back.

[Anonymous]

I think there is the idea with a Russian adoption that a family wants to adopt a white child because there are lots of other places like China, Latin America, Haiti etc. where a family could also adopt a child and I could be wrong but I didn't think Russia was that much closer, cheaper, quicker, more kids available to adopt etc. than all the other places.

Precisely. Don't forget Guatemala, Vietnam, South Korea and Cambodia.

Russia is really the only huge source for caucasoid children available for adoption.