Today’s guest blogger is Nickie Hanson.

The article I chose was from NBC News and The Associated Press titled Boy sent back to Russia, adoption ban urged.  This particular article was last updated on April 9, 2010. This particular article details the situation of a 7 year-old boy, who was put on a flight from Washington to Moscow, by himself, to be returned to his adoptive country.  He had been adopted by a family in Tennessee and they no longer wanted to parent the child.  This decision resulted in strong feelings internationally and domestically about foreign adopted children and families and supports. Additionally, on an even larger scale, the Russian and US Governments were involved in this situation.

The Associated Press reported that “The Kremlin children’s rights office said the boy was carrying a letter from his adoptive mother saying she was returning him due to severe psychological problems.”

This article is both hurtful to potential adoptions (foreign and domestic) and yet at the same time helpful.  In my opinion, this article can be harmful in a way, in that it does not portray the reality of adoption and the help that can be available. This article sensationalizes a unique and singular situation (which sells papers/results in blog reading/etc.) and does so by highlighting the failure on this family’s part.    The helpful part is a little harder to delve into but I do think there can be something positive taken from this.

The harm is done in potentially scaring off possible adoptive families. The article reports that the adoptive mother wrote in her letter that, “This child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues.”  Further, “I was lied to and misled by the Russian Orphanage workers and director regarding his mental stability and other issues…”  “After giving my best to this child, I am sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends, and myself, I no longer wish to parent this child.”  While the information published is this individual’s thoughts and feelings about her experience, it will likely give pause to families that were considering adoption for fear of also adopting a child that is a danger, a child with “severe psychopathic issues” or being lied to by professionals involved with the child.

Additionally, the article does not report any repercussions or consequences for the family that returned the child.  Having said that, this article was not one of the most recent ones. I choose it after reviewing several, because it had the most information on the adoptive family’s thought process and the initial government reactions. There are numerous, more current articles which I will also note in this write up.  I wanted to note that there were no repercussions noted, as I see this as another harmful influence of this article. I believe the harm is done by showing that challenging children are “disposable.”  This is yet another message that I see as a negative impact of the article. If current adoptive families had struggled with their adoptive children, would this then encourage them to simply buy a plane ticket and send their child back?  In a sense, allowing children to be “disposable?”  Further, this article doesn’t report any services that could potentially be available or utilized to help children and families that are struggling. The story is very much about sensationalizing the story, bashing the adoptive parents, and Russia’s response.

While many parts of this situation overall and the article can be off-putting to potential adoptive families, there is a small enlightening note from Dr. Joseph LaBarbera who is a clinical psychologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. Dr. LaBarbera is quoted as saying. “Parents enter into it (foreign adoption) with positive motivations but, in a sense, they are a little bit blindsided by their desire to adopt.”  Further, “They’re not prepared to appreciate, psychologically, the kinds of conditions these kids have been exposed to and the effect it has had on them.” The small note from Dr. LaBarbera is helpful in pointing out the realities of adoption, however, more could have been stated.