Talk politics.

Recent events with a 6 year old boy adopted from Russia by a family from Tennessee and then sent home on a plane alone, only a year later made me ponder the issue of privilege, wealth and children. The Tennessee case has now lead to Russia putting a temporary hold on adoptions from Russia to the US until matters have been investigated.
Authorities have also reported that fourteen Russian children have died of abuse in the US during the last decade.

Just to make it clear: this is not a problem exclusive to the US, but a problem that exists in all wealthy countries that deal with international adoption on any larger scale. In Sweden there was a public discussion in 2006 leading to some suggestions in tightening laws around adoption, after a scandal after a Romani boy from the Czech Republic was suspected to have been abused to death by his Swedish foster parents.
The new law discussion (which lead to some changes)circulated around such facts as:

*International adoption deals with around half a million kids/year

*Since the 1950's when it started, international adoptions have been run by private organizations, dependent on adoption fees (usually between $7000-30000 depending on case and country)

* In most adopting countries some form of initial investigation is made of the family willing to adopt, either by social services or the agency, but since the host country (a country of significantly weaker economy than the adopting country) is incredibly eager to adopt children away, the agencies are in need of money for their expenses, and since the home investigation is seen as an intrusion by the investigated parents, it is often not as thorough an affair as it perhaps should be.

* This has lead to many wealthy families being able to adopt, in spite of having mental heath issues or even addiction problems within their ranks.

Basically, what the articles and discussions bluntly were asking was: is it okay for these adults to adopt for their own sake primarily and not for the sake of the children?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of international adoption, I just think that there should be a stronger support system for the rights of the child, and that this support system must be driven independently from the agencies and by representatives from both countries in question.

The recent Tennessee case, is not by any means the worst example for how things can go wrong. I can definitely understand some of the problems that this (clearly unprepared) family faced in taking care of a child well beyond infancy in age, who lived his whole life without learning such basic things as parental bonding from an early age, learning conflict resolution, learning pride in ownership, and much more. But even though it doesn't seem like the boy was beaten or physically abused, I as a reader of the news articles about this incident couldn't help but react when I heard that the family had hurried to change the boy's name as soon as he reached his new country.

The boy's name was Artyom, but he was named Justin by his new parents, and while I think it's okay to change names so they sound more like the ones in the new country, I still can't shake that the boy was six years old already, and had probably bonded with his name. I can only hope that he had a saying in picking a new name, and what name that was suppose to be. It's a small thing, but just one of many actions that could be taken toward a sentient half grown individual in order to "mold" him/her into what the family really wants and has payed for in their own minds. And so your new kid gets sick, or has issues, and then you return him?

How much should the privilege of money be able to buy? And what rights do children have when they come from poverty into wealth? Do these children still have rights, even if their country of origin doesn't defend those rights, but sell them off to the highest bidder?

It would be interesting to hear how people think these rights could be improved, and if they should.