Monday, December 31, 2012

Russia Moves a Step Closer to Banning Adoptions by U.S. Citizens

Link to original article.

December 21, 2012

Russia Moves a Step Closer to Banning Adoptions by U.S. Citizens

MOSCOW — The lower house of Parliament gave its final approval on Friday to a proposed ban on the adoption of Russian children by American citizens, drawing a sharp response from the United States, which urged officials not to play politics with the lives of orphans.
“If it becomes law, the legislation passed today will needlessly remove the path to families for hundreds of Russian children each year,” the American ambassador, Michael A. McFaul, said in a statement issued here. “The welfare of children is simply too important to be linked to other issues in our bilateral relationship.”
In his statement, and in messages on Twitter in Russian, Mr. McFaul urged Russian officials to instead focus on working with the United States to implement a bilateral agreement on adoptions that was ratified earlier this year and took effect only on Nov. 1. “It would be more productive,” Mr. McFaul wrote.
It is still unclear if the ban will become law. President Vladimir V. Putin, who could veto the legislation or demand changes, was asked about it eight times at his annual news conference on Thursday, but he refused to state a firm view. He said he needed time to read the measure and to consult with lawyers and others experts.
The first few months of Mr. Putin’s latest term as president, which began in May, have been marked by a series of tough legislative measures and other steps aimed at curtailing what he views as undue influence by the United States and the West in Russia’s affairs. An adoption ban would be an even more forceful move against the United States.
After presiding over his four and a half hour news conference on Thursday, Mr. Putin traveled to Brussels on Friday for talks with European officials on energy, trade and the civil war in Syria.
The vote in the Duma, the lower house of Parliament, was 420 to 7 with 1 abstention. The bill is expected to be considered next week by the Federal Assembly, the upper chamber, where legislative leaders have said they expect it will easily win approval.
The Russian measure was developed in retaliation for a new American law that will punish Russian citizens who are accused of violating human rights, by barring them from travel to the United States and from owning real estate or maintaining financial assets there. The law was named after Sergei L. Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in prison in 2009 after trying to expose a huge government tax fraud. His supporters say he was denied proper medical care.
Mr. Putin and other Russian officials reacted furiously to the passage of the American law, calling it hypocritical and accusing the United States of a multitude of human rights abuses, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan and at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba.
The Russian bill was initially written to impose sanctions on American judges and others accused of violating the rights of adopted Russian children in the United States who became victims of child abuse. It was named for Dmitri Yakovlev, a toddler who died in Virginia in 2008 after his adoptive father left him in a parked car for nine hours. The father, Miles Harrison, was acquitted of manslaughter by a judge who ruled that while he was negligent he had not shown the “callous disregard for human life” required for conviction.
But Russian officials were vexed in developing a parallel response to the American law. While Russians, especially the wealthy, enjoy traveling to the United States, owning real estate and maintain assets in Western banks, relatively few Americans vacation or hold assets in Russia.
The bill was then expanded to include a ban on adoptions of Russian children by American citizens. Occasional cases of abuse, even deaths, of adopted Russian children in the United States, have inflamed the public here, and the issue reached a critical level in 2010 after a 7-year-old boy was sent alone on a flight back to Russia by his adoptive mother in Tennessee. The mother sent him with a typewritten note, saying the boy had developmental problems and she could no longer handle him. That case led Russia to threaten a ban on adoptions, but an agreement calling for heightened oversight. That agreement, which was ratified by the Duma in July, went into effect on Nov. 1.
The proposed ban opened up a rare rift at the highest levels of Russian government, with some senior officials, including the foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, speaking out against it. Mr. Lavrov was personally involved in negotiating the agreement on adoptions with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Other critics of the ban have argued that it would hurt Russian orphans far more than anyone else. But at his news conference on Thursday, Mr. Putin dismissed such concerns, saying the ban would apply only to the United States and not to other nations.
Of Russia’s 3,400 international adoptions last year, nearly 1,000 involved parents from the United States, more than any other country. Russia has an acute child welfare problem, with more than 650,000 orphans now living in orphanages, other institutions or foster care. Many of these children suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome or from other physical and mental health issues. While some supporters of the ban say Russia should handle this problem on its own, many officials acknowledge it simply cannot do so.
In addition to banning adoptions, the law would bar organizations that help Americans adopt from operating in Russia, and it would impose new restrictions on people who hold both Russian and American citizenship to keep them from working for nonprofit groups that work in the political sphere.
Earlier this year, Russia ordered the United States Agency for International Development to cease operations here, ending two decades of partnership on public health campaigns, civil society initiatives and other programs.
In his statement on Friday, Mr. McFaul warned that the law “would link the fate of orphaned children to unrelated political issues.”
“We appreciate President Putin’s comment yesterday that most American adoptive parents are kind and caring people,” Mr. McFaul said. “American families, in fact, have welcomed more than 60,000 Russian children into their families over the past 20 years, many of whom are special needs children.”
Mr. McFaul also expressed regret over abuse cases, and said it was concern over such cases that led to the new agreement earlier this year.
Critics of the ban in Russia, including Ilya V. Ponomarev, a member of Parliament from the Just Russia party, said that Russian children were at a statistically greater risk of abuse and death in Russia than they were in the United States.
Experts on international adoption said that uncertainty can be nearly as damaging as a prohibition on adoptions because it prompts potential adoptive parents to decide that they should expend money, effort and emotion given the risk that their efforts would be thwarted by a policy change.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Film: My Name is Faith

ATN is sponsoring the US Premiere of "My Name Is Faith", a documentary 
about a young girl's struggles with Reactive Attachment Disorder. The film 
has been selected for the Social Change Film Festival and will be shown on 
Wed, Nov 28 in New Orleans, at the Zeitgeist Multi-Disciplinary Arts Center. 
ATN is supporting this effort and acting as a resource for the film makers 
during Q&A and interviews, when questions arise about attachment disorder 
and trauma.

Link to the movie: _http://www.mynameisfaith.com/
(http://www.mynameisfaith.com/

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The Orphanage


This one is really intense. Speaks to the tragedy of orphanhood and the difficulty faced by children who languish in orphanages all over the globe. Check out this blog too: Twin Prints: An Adoption Story

The Orphanage

JULY 12, 2012, Jenny Spinner










There are ones you never forget. Mine is the little girl in the green room with the curtains drawn against the sun, which presses against them in bright vertical rectangles. Those blocks of light are veiled evidence of a world outside this room. Inside are two rows of green and pink cribs, five on each side of the room, with an aisle down the middle. She is on her back in a pile of blankets in a pink one at the end of a row.


Some days there were toddlers in the other cribs, attempting to nap, or refusing, depending on their toddler moods. Other days, they were in a playpen in another room, climbing over and on each other like puppies. “Hey,” my sister whispered to a group of them one day. They were in a huddle on a little boy’s back as he sprawled face-down on the floor of the playpen. He was crying. “Don’t stand on him. That’s not nice.” The huddle stopped jumping and looked at her, blinking. “La la la,” she tried again. Blink. Blink. Jump.


Back in the green room, the little girl was staring at the ceiling. Something was wrong with her—she didn’t seem able to move—she was too old for a crib—her limbs were sticks–her eyes was wild and lost—but I never ventured through the doorway for fear of upsetting the nurses shuffling past. Instead, I stood on the threshold, trying to catch her eye. I’m not sure why I wanted her to see me standing there with my forced smile. I wasn’t staying. I wasn’t taking her home. At the end of the week, I would be on a plane to Paris, then to Philadelphia, and she would go on lying there in her crib until she wasn’t lying there anymore. Sometimes she whimpered and grunted. Sometimes she cried with her mouth wide open, only no sound escaping. That is how she comes to me in the quiet spaces before I fall asleep: a little girl buried in blankets in a stuffy room, her mouth a circle of soundless sobs, as I instinctively shush her from the doorway, the way I do when my own children cry.





One day everyone at the orphanage seemed cranky. It was over 100 outside—a boiling spring day, even for Morocco—but the babies were still dressed in their requisite three layers. Maybe they were hot or their afternoon bottles were late or they hadn’t slept well or it was just one of those days, but the entire orphanage reverberated with MAMAMAMAMAMAMAMA. It would have been easy to hear something that wasn’t there–a long, deep cry for the bodies that had left them somewhere else–but I was trying hard not to form metaphors from my own narrative of emotion. That’s not easy to do in an orphanage, for anyone, but especially when you are adopted.


As a child, orphanages haunted me. They were one of the boogeymen of my nightmares. My sister and I were in foster care briefly between mothers, but the possibility of the orphanage still hung in the air of my childhood like a barely missed threat. The only still operating orphanage I knew of was in nearby Assumption, Illinois, a small rural community along I-51 that we passed through heading somewhere south. As we drove by Kemmerer Village, I gave in to my imagination, populating the insides of buildings I couldn’t see with sad, parentless Oliver Twists and Orphan Annies and Pips and Pollyannas. As an adopted kid, I didn’t take family for granted. Family wasn’t an inevitability, an expectation. It was a gift.


In reality, by the 1970s, orphanages in the United States that remained open were not filled with healthy, white newborns-in-demand like my sister and me. They had become places of shelter for older troubled and abused kids. Orphanages were for the unlucky children, the ones who were not chosen, who were cast off or taken. It seemed entirely unfair that some of us got families and some of us didn’t, and the orphanage symbolized for me the fragility of my own good fortune.


On the other side of the world, in the orphanage where my nephew spent the first four months of his life, he had a First Mama, a nurse who was his primary caregiver, a nurse he might have called MAMAMAMA some day in the future when he was hot or hungry or bored. But another mama chose him before he could speak. Whenever my nephew’s First Mama brought him to my sister during visiting hours at the orphanage, my sister took him in her arms and said, “Hi, baby! It’s Mama.” He smiled as soon as he heard my sister’s voice.


One afternoon, while my sister bounced her baby in her arms before settling onto the mattress to give him his bottle, I slipped out into the hallway and looked in on the little girl next door. She was lying in her crib with her eyes on the ceiling. Her mouth kept opening and closing in silence, like a guppy trying to breathe out of water. I wondered if she was here because she was broken or if that would have made no difference anyway. Whatever the case, I knew that she would likely not be adopted, not if she were this old already, not this disabled. The odds of one of those amazing and brave parents who adopt children with special needs finding their way to this girl, in this orphanage, in this country, were slim.


I realized that I was standing in the doorway to one of my greatest childhood fears, facing the bullet my sister and I had dodged. I watched it strike this little girl instead, bypassing my sister and me, bypassing my nephew, too. We all got a family. She probably would not.


Yes, here in the flesh, was the orphan destiny I so feared. She wasn’t in a book or in a movie or in a brick building flying by my window in a red blur . She was right here, just feet from me: a child who would never be chosen, a child whom I, too, was about to turn away from.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

The Orphan Factory | Russia Beyond The Headlines

The Orphan Factory | Russia Beyond The Headlines

November 21, 2011
Boris Altshuler
In Russia, there is a widespread trend of separating children from parents, much more so than in other countries. The rights of troubled parents are signed away with relative ease. Their children are known as social orphans.
The Orphan Factory
The problem of separating children from parents is still urgent in Russia. Source: Getty Images/Fotobank
There are fewer children today than there were ten years ago because of a shrinking population generally. In 1998, there were 22 million schoolchildren in the country; in 2010, there were 12.8 million, a drop of 42 percent in 12 years.

Yet there are more than 100,000 new orphans in Russia every year (more than 300 a day).  About one quarter of these children are swelling the populations of orphanages while the rest are being placed in the care of close relatives.
 In 2009, the permanent population of child-care institutions was more than 300,000. Almost 100,000 of them had no parents, while the rest had been voluntarily “surrendered” by their parents to the state because the children had health problems or because the family was poor or dysfunctional. The list of family problems includes drug addiction and alcoholism but is topped by poverty, which in Russia affects children above all.    

The underlying cause of this “orphan factory” is the rudimentary state of the social services available to a family in distress. Hundreds of thousands of families with disabled children have the worst of it: nobody helps them, and there is no support. Rather, officials press them to put their child in a state-run boarding school.

Russia traditionally has gigantic boarding schools with hundreds of children. The country regularly reads shocking reports about children’s rights violations in these closed “child dumps.” Highly professional legislative and other initiatives based on the best Russian and world practices have been put forward many times and received support at the top political level in the country. Somehow, this help has not yet reached our children.

Yet the billions of budget dollars annually funneled into supporting children’s boarding schools make this orphan factory system incredibly stable.

Another problem is segregation in the educational realm. Children with special educational needs (for reasons of poor health, poor knowledge of Russian) cannot cope with the basic curriculum, cannot study together with “normal” children and are likely to be transferred to special (correctional) classes and boarding schools. The final link in this chain of “educational isolation” is children’s homes for mentally handicapped children (DDIs), which are not educational institutions at all. The widespread practice is over-diagnosis of mental disability, which “buries alive” many children, who are simply excluded from the life.

Some cases have been reported of children with officially hopeless diagnoses being taken out of DDIs by families. After some time and with encouragement, they were perfectly able to study in an ordinary school with ordinary children.

In January 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev approved the national education initiative “Our New School,” which puts an end to the above-mentioned traditional segregation in education. For more than a year now, the nation has been discussing the new draft law “On Education,” which is designed to implement the presidential initiative. The legislative process reached a stalemate, however, because educational conservatives have been against it.

The priority measures to solve these problems are obvious: the country desperately needs social housing and “a food economy for the poor,” involving the production of staple food items. Social services in Russia must be oriented toward helping families with children at their place of residence, if possible, without taking the child away from the parents. Yet so far, all attempts to implement the so-badly needed reforms inevitably run up against a wall of corruption and monopoly.

Boris Altshuler is the chairman of the board of the regional NGO Right of the Child and a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Monday, April 2, 2012

International Adoption in Ireland


Changing times: majority of domestic adoptions now sought by step-parents
Monday March 19 2012


There were 39 orders made for adoption of Irish children in this country last year but very few involved birth mothers giving their baby up for adoption.

Few Irish women give their babies up for adoption any more, which leads to couples going abroad in their thousands to countries like Russia and China in the last decade to adopt a child.

Of the 39 domestic adoptions, a figure which was released by Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald, she pointed out a "very small number" involved children placed for adoption in the traditional sense.

The rest would have involved a step-parent making an application to adopt the child of their spouse. This is an increasing feature in modern Ireland as couples divorce and remarry.

Other orders made here for domestic adoption last year involved the adoption of children in long-term foster care by their foster parents.

This must involve the consent of the child's birth mother or the obtaining of a High Court order showing the child has been "abandoned" by the parent.

Other domestic adoptions can involve a relative, such as a grandparent, uncle or aunt adopting a child.

Some of the 47 applications made last year are still being processed so the eventual number is likely to be higher.

In 2010 there were 153 applications received and 189 orders made for domestic adoptions, the Minister added.

Meanwhile, an audit carried out by the Adoption Authority in 2010 has found no official files exist for 99 people who were adopted.

Around 50pc of these relate to so called adoptions prior to the introduction of regulation of adoption in 1952.

The Authority only holds records since this date.

Legislation is planned to allow the Authority to access records currently held by a wide range of information services.

Camp Clio

Good morning. I want to let you know that the Adoption Institute is involved in an exciting new project: We’re developing best practices for a summer camp! It’s called Camp Clio, and it is unique. Adopted and non-adopted children will come together in a beautiful setting in Connecticut to share games, meals, and "old-fashioned" activities like swimming, canoeing, sailing, arts and crafts, and campfires. For the adopted kids, it will also be a camp within a camp – a place full of fun activities that will allow them to express and explore their feelings about adoption; create a positive outlet for ideas and emotions; and increase self-awareness and self-esteem. Camp Clio’s campers will have their own cabins, which they will share with teenage counselors who also are adopted.

cid:image001.jpg@01CD0BFB.A9201000



You can learn more about the camp – including how to sign up – from the attached postcard or at www.campclio.org. Then please forward this message far and wide, and encourage adoptive parents to enroll their children for this wonderful new opportunity, one in which they can grow as young people even as they have a blast as kids.

Last thing: If you know any adopted teens who want to be counselors for a couple of weeks this summer, they’re taking applications. To apply or for information about the camp, email info@CampClio.org or call 646-285-6237.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Lost & Found

Great video by AlJazeera about the children stolen from "subversives" during Argentina's Dirty War. Absolutely fascinating look at love versus loyalty or love and politics. Runtime ~ 23 minutes

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

With DNA Testing, Suddenly They Are Family


With DNA Testing, Suddenly They Are Family

Erin McCracken for The New York Times
Khrys Vaughan, left, of St. Louis and her cousin Jennifer Grigsby of Somerset, Ky., meeting for the first time last week.

She began searching for her origins, only to find out that her adoption records had been sealed, a common practice in the 1960s. Then Mrs. Vaughan stumbled across an ad from a DNA testing company offering to help people who had been adopted find clues to their ancestry and connections to blood relatives.
About five weeks after shipping off two tiny vials of her cells from a swab of her cheek, Mrs. Vaughan received an e-mail informing her that her bloodlines extended to France, Romania and West Africa. She was also given the names and e-mail addresses of a dozen distant cousins. This month, she drove 208 miles from her hometown here to Evansville, Ind., to meet her third cousin, the first relative to respond to her e-mails. Mrs. Vaughan is black and her cousin is white, and they have yet to find their common ancestor. But Mrs. Vaughan says that does not matter.
“Somebody is related to me in this world,” she said. “Somebody out there has my blood. I can look at her and say, ‘This is my family.’ ”
A growing number of adoptees, now in the thousands, are turning to DNA testing companies in hopes of piecing together the puzzles of their beginnings. Some long to learn whether their family trees first bloomed in Ireland or Italy, Europe or South America. Others want to know whether they are genetically predisposed to developing diabetescancer or other diseases. Most adoptees are hungry for information that will lead to their birth parents, but some are also expanding their conception of family as they embrace a far-flung constellation of second, third and fourth cousins.
Some DNA testing companies have been stepping up their efforts to reach out to this community over the past several years, posting advertisements on adoption message boards and testimonials on their Web sites. Adoptees and some groups that serve them are also spreading the word. “There has never been a better time to establish your biological identity,” says the Web site of Adoption.com, which promotes its efforts to unite adoptees and blood relatives.
Genetic testing has surged in popularity over the last decade, as the cost of analyzing cell samples has dropped and as Americans have grown more interested in learning about their heritage. As a result, some companies have amassed enough DNA samples that they can offer to help adoptees identify their kin, bringing hope to people born in an era when adoption records were routinely sealed, leaving few paper trails to follow.
Several companies provide tests that can confirm whether adoptees are related to individuals they already know. Others cast a wider net by plugging DNA results into databases that contain tens of thousands of genetic samples, provided mostly by people searching for their ancestral roots. The tests detect genetic markers that reveal whether people share a common ancestor or relative.
Some experts on adoption and genetics have criticized ancestry and genealogy testing companies, saying they are, at times, connecting people whose genetic links are tenuous — in effect stretching the definition of a relative. Nevertheless, the growing popularity of the tests, combined with social media sites that connect people day to day, has given some adoptees a sense of family that feels tangible, intimate and immediate.
Within minutes of receiving the names of her distant relatives, Mrs. Vaughan, a freelance project manager, was admiring their photographs on Facebook. Another adoptee who found family through DNA testing, Kathy Borgmann, a 49-year-old corn farmer in New Palestine, Ind., exchanged e-mails with cousins who delighted her by saying, “Welcome to the family.”
Alan Bogner of Olympia, Wash., felt such kinship with his newly discovered second and third cousins that he attended their family reunion in Iowa. He learned, among other things, that many of them were also tall — he is 6-foot-5 — and that they shared his liberal politics.
“It sounds so baloney, but they’re just so much like me,” said Mr. Bogner, 54, who works for the governor’s office.
The tests have their limitations. The price of testing can range from $99 to more than $500, putting them out of reach for some people. Company officials also caution that it is much more common to find second and third cousins than birth parents or siblings. Neil Schwartzman of Montreal struck gold when his test connected him with his sister — “I was gob-smacked,” he recalled — but such cases are not typical.
Company officials say the odds are improving, though, as more people pay for tests and add their DNA to the pool of potential matches. Two testing companies — Family Tree DNA and 23andMe — have databases that contain samples from 350,000 and 125,000 people, respectively, and their executives say those numbers are rising. In recent years, about 9,000 of their customers have identified themselves as adoptees, company officials say, but they believe the actual number is larger since not everyone shares their reasons for testing.
For somebody looking for a match, “maybe there’s no one in the database today, but in two years a first cousin might be there,” said Anne Wojcicki, the chief executive of 23andMe.
DNA testing companies, which compete for customers, do not pool their databases, so people often submit samples to more than one.
Not everyone is hoping to find new relatives. Some adoptees who have found genetic matches have been rebuffed by their distant kin. Most people take genealogical DNA tests to fill gaps in their family trees, not to find new members of their clans. Mr. Bogner said several cousins identified through DNA testing stopped communicating once they learned he was adopted. “It was horribly disappointing,” he said.
Elizabeth Bartholet, an expert on adoption at Harvard Law School, said the proliferation of testing highlights the need for broader access to adoption records. In the meantime, she says, adoptees would be better served by nurturing the relationships they already have.
But Mrs. Vaughan, who is now 44, said her newfound relatives have filled a void in her life. Her adoptive father died when she was 9, and she had found comfort over the years knowing that she shared his smile. “I was crying because I wasn’t Daddy’s little girl,” said Mrs. Vaughan, describing the day that her adoptive mother finally told her the truth. “I needed to find my place in the world.”
She sent out her first e-mail to a cousin identified by Family Tree DNA in March. It landed in the inbox of Jennifer Grigsby, a research analyst from Somerset, Ky., who read it with astonishment. Mrs. Grigsby had taken a DNA test to learn more about her lineage. “I wasn’t looking for a new relationship,” she said. But when the two women started talking, “there was like an instant connection,” said Mrs. Grigsby, 37.
They started exchanging e-mails and Facebook messages every week, and calling once or twice a month. A few weeks ago, they decided to meet in Evansville, midway between their homes. But three days before their get-together, Mrs. Vaughan learned the identity of her birth mother. The courts had determined that her mother had died in 2005, which meant that her name could finally be released. The discovery led her to four sisters.
Mrs. Grigsby offered to cancel their plans so Mrs. Vaughan could connect with her siblings. But Mrs. Vaughan would have nothing of it. Last week, she drove more than three hours to see the first blood relative who had embraced her as family. “Finally!” she said when they met, and she hugged her third cousin as if she would never let go.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

How Ethiopia's Adoption Industry Dupes Families and Bullies Activists