In the Kremlin

Under the guise of care

December 19, 2012 Grigory Durnovo

The idea to prohibit US citizens with the adoption of Russian children requires detailed consideration in isolation from the Magnitsky Act, asymmetric response to which it appeared. (How it looks directly in the context of the response to the “Act of Magnitsky”, “Daily Journal” has already written .)

As a matter of fact, irritation that “our children” have been sent from orphanages to foreign adoptive parents for a long time. Each fact of oppression, and even more so the death of the Russian (however, formally not a Russian) child turned out to be in handy and was adopted. There is no dispute, some stories really cause a rack. Tori Hansen sent the adopted Artem Savelyev (Justin Hansen) back to Moscow. In the family of Michael and Nanett Cravers, the adopted Ivan Skorobogatov (Nathanel Craver) died. Despite the fact that about eighty injuries were found on the boy’s body, the foster parents were found guilty only in the murder by negligence and sentenced to a minimum prison term, which turned out to be even less than that they had already served. Miles Harrison managed to forget the adopted Dmitry Yakovlev (Chase Harrison) locked in the car in the sun. The child died, but the court recognized the adoptive father innocent. To all these people, let's say, there are questions. And, of course, the adoption agreement between Russia and the United States, ensuring regular control of the process, should have been adopted a long time ago. Recall that it was ratified only on November 1 of this year, and the amendment made to the Duma intends to cancel it. And yet, no matter how terrible specific stories are, so exciting public (and, most importantly, pro -government) consciousness, one cannot but admit that they do not have too much influence on the overall picture with the adoption of Russian children.

If we talk about the deaths of children adopted from Russia in the United States, for more than twenty years, since 1991, there have been, according to various estimates, from 15 to 21. In total, over the years, more than 60 thousand Russian children adopted over the years. (You can see more detailed statistics, for example, here .) At the same time, the number of adoptive children who die in Russia is not much less than adopted children from Russia who have died in the United States over twenty years. This was recognized even by the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child Pavel Astakhov, one of the most violent critics of the idea of ​​foreign adoption recently. Today he is recalled the phrase that annually in Russia in foster families they die on average from nine to 15 children. “If we compare statistics on dead children in Russia and America, then, of course, the bloody score is not in our favor,” he said.

We admit, Astakhov collapses both for Russian orphanages for barracks and criminal inattention to children, and for Russian citizens whose families children are humiliated, torture and even die. Nevertheless, he raises a particularly loud scream exactly when it comes to adoptive parents from the United States. This is what, in particular, was dedicated to his tirade during the memorable last “direct line” of Putin (then the Prime Minister). Astakhov mentioned both Cravets and Harrison and said directly: “I am an opponent of foreign adoption, we gave almost 200 thousand children to foreign families, most in the United States. Maybe in connection with the latest events we should stop foreign adoption? ” Putin replied to this that he was also not a supporter of the practice of adopting Russian children by foreign citizens, but "there are a lot of people in our country who believe and say that in our orphanages and other institutions adverse conditions for children, and they will be happy if those foreign citizens who want children want to have children." He also expressed the obvious idea that it is necessary to improve the conditions in orphanages and encourage the adoption of children by Russian citizens.

Astakhov painted rainbow paintings, as in the near future, Russia would refuse orphanages, as it would be possible to successfully redistribute funds to support the adoptive parents. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the situation in the country does not have to ensure that in the near future all the children get into families. Moreover, in some regions, instead of maintaining small orphanages, children from there, due to economic inefficiency, began to resettle into large boarding schools. And this despite the fact that, according to all experts, children in small orphanages are much more comfortable than in large ones, since the atmosphere there is close to home.

In addition, there is talk about the need to cancel benefits for orphans upon admission to universities. Housing to graduates of orphanages is provided under a social employment agreement, and not in property. Such a measure is explained by the care of children, the desire to protect them from scammers. In practice, it turns out that, upon exit from the orphanages, orphans are populated in the same new buildings on the evictions, forming communes, which deprives them of the opportunity to adapt to normal life outside the boarding school. These apartments can not be rented or sold, so the orphans are tied to the communes by force. So, as it often happens with us, the declared concern for the needy citizens in practice turns into a oppression and a deterioration in their position.

The fight against foreign adoption at the regional level began before amending the Duma committee. So, in July, US citizens lost the opportunity to adopt children from the Kemerovo region. The idea to prohibit the Americans to adopt Russian children for many is consonant. The attitude of a significant part of our fellow citizens to the United States is known, and stories about the death of children from Russia, of course, only contribute to the deterioration of this attitude. According to surveys, from 30% to 50% of respondents support the idea of ​​prohibiting foreign adoption.

At the same time, ideologists of the ban as arguments are more often abstracting, for example. Wifting the gene pool. So, a member of the United Russia faction Ekaterina Lakhova, co -author of the notorious amendment, complains about the fact that the children, leaving, lose touch with our tradition, culture, forget the Russian language.

At this point, it is necessary to stop in more detail and clarify what exactly the children, mainly, come to foreign (most often truly American) adoptive parents. According to the law, foreign citizens can adopt a Russian child only if it cannot be transferred to the family of Russian citizens (or adoption to relatives, regardless of their citizenship and place of residence). In other words - when no one in Russia is ready to either adopt this child or take under guardianship. Most often these are children with a difficult medical diagnosis. If they lose the chance to find a foster family (US citizens make up the vast majority among foreign adoptive parents of Russian children, then citizens of Italy and Spain go by a wide margin), then they are most likely an unenviable fate. These children, as a rule, are doomed to spend their whole lives in closed special institutions.

Their future, albeit emotionally,, but with knowledge, the psychologist, a specialist in the family structure Lyudmila Petranovskaya painted in his blog: “... Of this thousand children a year, who will not leave for any American parents, not everyone will live up to 18. And up to 30 few. But 60 percent will be raped or sexually used in institutions. They are beaten, with their heads in the toilet or face in the described bed, the washes are very hot or icy water, fed through vomiting spasms - 80. Militated, insulted, deprived of contacts with relatives, freedom of movement, normal education, normal childhood - 100.
I know what I'm talking about. Because the children who got into families then remember and tell. And their foster parents tell me. And graduates tell. Hundreds, thousands of stories. Some even go to the prosecutor's office. The maximum that can be achieved is the quiet dismissal of “in your own” very presumptuous teacher. And if violence goes from the side of senior pupils - and this is basically so, then no one goes in general, but what will you do with them, if they themselves are the same unhappy, no one who needs no raped children in due time? Again in a psychiatric hospital? They were already there. ”

She is echoed by journalist Svetlana Sorokina, herself raising a child from an orphanage (she was the first to sign under a petition calling not to accept an amendment): “They (Americans. - Ed.) Will not stop adopting, they will take more children from Kazakhstan, Ukraine, China ... And ours live in orphanages, because the number of domestic lumines from deputy patriotism. The fig does not increase, and the children-disabled children, brothers-sister, teenage children are practically not at all. ”

In fact, it is enough to read what the director of the Life Foundation writes in his blog Ekaterina Chistyakova. One of her story about a seriously ill child adopted by the Americans should, in theory, stop those who are going to prohibit adoption - if they did not listen to the pointer from above, but to the voice of the mind.

What language can we speak if these children, maybe no one is talking at all? What traditions, what culture are we talking about? About the traditions of handling "wretched"?

In essence, the idea to prohibit the adoption of Russian children to US citizens is similar to a number of other decisions, which have recently taken formally in the peak of an insidious abroad, but in fact striking on their own citizens. Thus, commenting on the decision to close the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official representative of the Foreign Ministry Alexander Lukashevich noted, in particular that "Russian ... civil society has become quite mature and does not need" external leadership '' ''. So with adoption - we, they say, are able to support ourselves and our children. As a Kremlin official said in a conversation with Vedomosti, social policy has recently improved, but should become even better so that the Russians do not refuse their children and more willingly go to adoption. This remark does not withstand any criticism: at first it would be necessary to really improve social policy, and then introduce prohibitions. But this, as we understand, is not at all about social policy.

Meanwhile, on December 17, opinions began to sound that this Duma would not accept the amendment. Like, this is a distracting maneuver in order to drag another correction under the noise - on the suspension of the activities of NPOs engaged in political activities for American money (of course, this is another blow to Russian citizens). Indirect confirmations appeared quite quickly: at first the idea of ​​the ban on American adoption was criticized by the Minister of Education Dmitry Livanov, and then the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. And if Livanova, who allowed herself a remark on Twitter, can still be accused of security, as the deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, Olga Batalin, did, then it is difficult to speak out of Lavrov made in public.

Suppose this amendment will really not be accepted. However, neither the deputies Ekaterina Lakhova and Elena Afanasyeva, who made an amendment to the profile committee, nor all those who have already managed to express support to their undertaking, will not succeed in getting out of what they have made.

There is no dispute, many other fresh ideas of Russian authorities, depriving Russian citizens of the opportunity to fight for their rights (as, for example, the above amendment of NGOs) also cause indignation and require the intervention of all caring people. Nevertheless, the amendment on the prohibition of adoption is an exceptional phenomenon in its kind, since it applies, perhaps, the most powerless part of the population of Russia. To deprive orphans of disabled people the chance of survival under the guise of caring for them is the top of cynicism and hypocrisy. But, of course, we should not deceive the cynicism and hypocrisy of those who now, perhaps, will report to the presumptuous deputies and reason in the same spirit in which Putin reasoned during the “direct line”.