On family counseling in a rehabilitation center sit two adults and a girl of fifteen. Girl hands crossed, legs crossed, looking askance, the skin around the nails bitten sores from burrs. Scary to her. Although it is something to fear, ‘ve seen worse from native parents, drug addicts, and killed her in front of compatibilism. Fear girl disguises brutality and indifference. Let call her Mary. Masha from foster families. Standard features troubled Teens: absenteeism, frequent quarrels at home, drinks in companies. Nothing criminal, but it is also the state baby, because every step is recorded. It is in the family not one: their six children. All taken care of. Parents can not cope with it: “All the other normal children, and Masha – it is simply impossible! Yes, she is also the youngest example! The forces we have on you no!” Almost an hour parents again and again frustrated by the criticism and accusation, despite the comments of a psychologist. Mary flips out, sends all known address and runs into the office. Parents, rolling his eyes (“Here, you look at it!”) continue to complain, presenting Masha just extraordinary monster (sorry, don’t impress us, we have something Mary already felt we have something to compare). Provocative question of experts, in order to encourage guardians to remember why they are waving once took: “why not refuse?”. If the family was native, that’s a question we would have seen a puzzled look (“You do?”) or, if the case is severe (prickly three years, the mother gets out of the house all made) – still: “I Love him. He is my son, my blood. I fight for it I will.” But Mary is not native. At least in this family for seven years. So guardians Masha confidentially lowering the tone of the report: “From the state we have housing, issued under the education of six children. While there were three that nothing was supposed, the conditions allowed. And now the house was given, with a plot. But if waving back, unable to take the house, then will not put so big. Six should or even better.” And strength in the car, parents for her antics anymore. So they decided with Masha in good agreement: so she abandoned them. And while she’s in rehab lie down, they will watch another sixth child… They will give, they have good performance: the rest of the children do well at school, go into sections, disciplined… Now, if another statement that Mary is completely inadequate, and then just do not be surprised in custody.
Watching is gaining momentum social propaganda, feel that our government has clearly identified a goal: to do away with orphanages and send all children in foster care. Commercials on TV, billboards along the tracks, festivals, posters at bus stops, brochures… the Idea of taking a child to the family is promoted everywhere. And, like, the goal is good, Yes here only to fight against social orphanhood (when children become orphans with living relatives) through the outer frame is a little weird. Because the problem is not that children do not want to take, the problem is that kids somehow find themselves in orphanages. And if you sort the current orphanage a couple of years again there will be children, thrown out of families, by the way, many of them will have thrown the second time – already from the families of foster, but more on that later.
The issue should be resolved at the level of prevention of child abandonment in principle. Refuse often several categories: minor mom under pressure from family, and a large number of immigrants from the CIS countries. Other categories of women were either able to raise the child (if the relationship with his father was accidental), or abortion. Of course, there are exceptions, but the basis of child abandonment lies the problem of its inability to grow. And if you dig deeper, the ignorance/inability in a timely manner to use contraception. If you know you’re not ready for children there are many known ways to prevent it.
But that link our government seems to ignore. And if somewhere in Malawi, the highest level of HIV infections contraceptives distributed free of charge in any agricultural store, in our country, the cost of packaging of condoms is comparable to the cost of a few cans of alcoholic drinks. It is not surprising that young fathers make a choice in favor of the latter. At this stage, no socio-economic programmes are not yet implemented.
The following is in support of mothers who remained in a difficult situation, there are several. The so-called help centres for young mothers. Really good support, material, educational. But how many know about them? If you’ve seen ads at bus stops, in subway or on TV? Have you heard about the telephone hotline for girls thinking about abortion?
But momentum advertising on the subject of taking the child from the orphanage is huge. Hardly anywhere else in the world can you find such a number of forms of placement of the child in a new family in Russia. We have this foster parents and child custody, and guardianship, and the so-called village SOS, where 7-9 children, one foster mother (dad’s foster children, apparently not trusting, not enough dads in the home that families are not always available). There are various forms of institutions: social centres, orphanages, boarding schools.
Why do people who want to take someone else’s child, so many options in the form of adoption? Why this choice? The difference is essentially only in the degree of responsibility and… in the size of PAYMENTS. That is, in ancient times there was only one option: adoption. The family wants to take the child – the family takes the child, no benefits, money benefits. Then they continue to live like any normal family with their child: they contain, teach, suffer, argue, decide, criticize. Parents are fully responsible for the adopted child. But they have the right to full state intervention only in accordance with General legislation. Now, in addition to the classic (unfortunately, less and less popular these days), there was a variety of options, how can you take a child: the child of the day or the summer holidays, the child (to look at), the child on DULOXETINE (take at 16 and 18 over-the-counter), foster families, guardians and so on.
Most of these forms is accompanied by the payment of the state. That is a great marketing strategy developed somewhere up there: once we do not take children from orphanages, it is necessary to them in addition to give some kind of bonus: a lump sum, monthly benefit, optional benefits, and then, maybe, living space, even though at the time! Perhaps, I will! It is in the spirit of a market economy.
Stimulus found, now need to figure out how it’s better to call, so not much shopping around here. And presented it so guardianship is work, also work. The work that you need to pay with dignity, as the employees of children’s homes. And like, if you don’t think about it, it is nothing like the explanation, right? And you think about it you do not want if you are not concerned if it occurs somewhere in another place, with other people’s children. But if you think about it… what’s it about: “My job is to be a mother, the state pays me for it. I serve mothers and report to the state.” It’s about love? About the heat? It’s all about feelings? Is it true about motherhood and family? After all, a bad job can always be changed…
In search of official statistical returns of adopted children (which alas, is not advertised anywhere, so as not to frighten possible future adoptive parents), it is possible to stumble upon an article by Alexander Shmelev on the website pravmir.ru. The article is called hopefully: “the return rate of adopted children is greatly exaggerated” (pravmir.ru/alexandr-shmelevprocent-vozvrata-usynovlennyx-detej-silno-preuvelichen). Opened it with the hope of real numbers. The author argues that Senator Petrenko in his report declared the incorrect, inflated numbers on return of adopted children, namely from 6.5 to 4.5 thousand returned. And I wonder Alexander Shmelev concludes that it’s not so bad with adoption, and I quote: “so, the real situation is this: the family forms in 2012, a family of Russian citizens was passed 58,8 thousand children. 6.5 thousand of them – for adoption (the figure and caught the eye of Senator Petrenko), 37.3 thousand – on a grant in the form of guardianship (guardianship), 15 thousand – on a reimbursable form of guardianship (guardianship), including 13 thousand – in foster homes, 0,2 thousand – in foster care. Returned in children’s homes previously taken from the orphans was, indeed, about 4,500 children. But not only adopted, but mainly those who were taken under custody or under care. I.e. a rate of return equal to 70% (from 6,500 to 4,500), according to the Senator Petrenko and bloggers-repeaters, and 10 times less – about 7% (4500 from 58800). Moreover, adopted children among them – units (the exact statistics now can’t find, but know that it was adopted, and the adopted return very rarely)”.
Of course, it is remarkable that the percentage was not 70, and 7. Indeed, important same low rate, not the real 4500 (you say this number out loud slowly) children who have been abandoned twice! This is the figure one year! Four thousand five hundred children… Many of them after this can come to normal (at least very mediocre, not happy) life?
And that’s part of my question about the meaning of such a diversity of forms of guardianship, article Shmelev gives a quite clear answer. He indicates that adopted some (I mean official classic adoption) rarely returns (later in the article the author mentions that it is a complex process velocity) return 70% of those who fell under the so-called “compensatory” form of care. Like, not scary, these returnees are still not well adopted for good, their so, at the time took look. Indeed, children should understand the difference that officially they have not yet picked up from the orphanage! What’s so complicated? It was a trial period. And “parents” it could not stand. Again the relationship is onerous, and the approach in the store, did not fit, sorry, returned.
I have no purpose to condemn those failed parents and praise those who at any cost will raise the adopted child in your family to eighteen. Alas, we work with a pathology, perhaps because the many positive outcomes of adoption can not see. Can’t say that the classic adoption makes it more likely that the child will not refuse. Alas, the options to “shove” a child is not officially too much. Often we are adopted, are sent not only to the rehabilitation centers at the annual rate, but in boarding schools, boarding schools (sometimes even elite, and paid, and the creative and intellectual). If desired, and these children can go somewhere, if not back to the orphanage. About this I would like to discuss in another article.
The question is that the state, thinking and creating projects in the field of social, uses the same technology as in business. Set a goal – a purpose. Advertising and Finance to encourage adoption to those who had not seriously considered option is to take someone else’s child. For those who really want to raise a child, they and no ads realize your desire.
Lawmakers call children’s fate with the economic fate of the Russian tourism. You can persuade the lover of the Egyptian “all-inclusive” has to go to our South. Different ways to stimulate: prices, bans, promised a service… It can even go on the Russian Black sea. True to go to be wary. He had once, while sanctions were not, and did not think that our sea you can relax. And watch it all is through the prism of comparison. But there’s a chance that one out of ten of these new tourists to our South and then you’ll see! Yes, so like that he will come again and again, and be happy! However, the other nine after this trip can change my mind… But what are we to them! They could do it.
Here only the Black sea does not suffer from the fact that someone is disappointed in him and won’t anymore. And four thousand five hundred children that won’t be coming back returned back, disappointed in their parents, are unlikely to be able to handle it. And their suffering is spilling into antisocial behavior, aggression, and drugs, write off to bad genetics or the influence of computer games.
Is there analysis of the effectiveness of such programs? In fact 70% of return – an indicator of complete failure. Perhaps you need to invest not in advertising adoption and benefits guardians and more productive work, schools, foster parents, psychological supervision of such families along the way in the formation of adult real, and not illusory idea what awaits them. Because parent-child relationships is more complicated than the economic model of supply and demand. I want to approach to the solution of problems of social orphanhood was not just economic factors.
© 2017, paradox. All rights reserved.