If you are searching for general information about the case and the verdict please see my earlier overview post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry.

***
Перевести на русский

***

This post is an update to an ongoing series of posts I have made about the death of Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and the agency that placed him, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). EAC is one of the largest international adoption agencies in the world and the top agency in Russia (and had been in Guatemala.)

Russian law requires officials be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Dmitry is the the second Russian child EAC had placed who died apparently as a result of actions by their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham was killed by her adoptive mother in 1988. You can read my previous posts about Dmitry and EAC by clicking here (read from bottom to top, as entries are in reverse chronological order.)

***

Despite what appear to be at minimum impending changes in the Russian adoption system for Americans, by and large a “wait and see” silence has fallen over those portions of the industry most likely to be directy affected.

Russian adoption related message boards and blogs filled with prospective adopters have gone into a tissy in response to the Russian statements:

from- The Moscow Times- Tough New Rules for Adoptive U.S. Parents

The government will toughen regulations for Americans wishing to adopt Russian children after a U.S. court acquitted a Virginia man of felony charges in the death of his newly adopted Russian son earlier this year, officials said Thursday.

and

The ministry has already prepared an official demand to be sent to the U.S. State Department regarding the adoption of Russian children, Levitskaya said. The statement gave no specifics about possible stricter requirements. Ministry spokesman Alexander Kochnev said by telephone Thursday afternoon that officials were in the process of working out new rules.

from RIA Novosti- Russia slams acquittal of U.S. man over Russian-born son’s death

“We will demand that U.S. authorities review the extremely unfair ruling. Further cooperation with the United States in adoption will depend on Washington’s readiness to take practical steps to ease our concerns,” the ministry said.

The statement came after criticism earlier on Thursday by a senior Russian education and social protection official, who said adoption requirements for U.S. nationals would be toughened following the acquittal.

also from RIA Novosti-Russia to toughen adoption rules for U.S. over Harrison acquittal

“We are outraged by the court ruling and believe it to be totally unjust and unacceptable,” Alina Levitskaya was quoted by the Education and Science Ministry as saying. “It questions the reliability of the U.S. system of protection of adopted children’s rights, and will lead to tougher requirements for U.S. nationals in Russia.”

Levitskaya said the ministry would demand that authorities in the United States step up monitoring of children adopted from Russia. She said the education ministry and the Russian Embassy in the United States would seek a guilty verdict for Harrison.

The industry on the other hand, appears to be holding its breath and collectively crossing its’ fingers.

EAC, European Adoption Consultants, despite being at the center of the case, for both placing Dmitry and failing to live up to its obligations to inform the Russian government as to his disposition thus sparking an official investigation, is also tight-lipped.

Earlier they had placed two different versions of a brief statement about Dmitry’s death on their front page of their website. In the wake of Miles Harrison, their “forever family” forever client being acquitted EAC has continued on about business as usual.

JCICS, or the Joint Council on International Children’s Services, a membership trade organization and industry lobby with numerous adoption agencies as members, is remarkably silent. Their Russian news page last updated November 11th.

Unlike these others, NCFA, the National Council for Adoption, yet another adoption industry trade group and lobby, who have been remarkably quiet about both Dmitry’s death and the trial of Miles Harrison, has stirred from its slumber now that it understands its member organization’s incomes streams may well be affected by the verdict.

NCFA’s statement by and large, runs on two patronizing themes:

• Now now, let’s not act hastily!
• Calm down and let cooler heads prevail, anything else would be irrational!

Both wrapped up with a holiday bow of but THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! Adoptions MUST allowed to continued- for the sake of the children! (and NCFA member agency’s pocketbooks!)

The full statement, currently available on the NCFA homepage, reads:

National Council For Adoption Calls For Calm and Rational Response to Harrison Verdict

The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) has followed closely the events and legal proceedings involving the tragic death of young Chase Harrison on July 8, 2008 and the not guilty verdict on manslaughter charges brought against his father Miles Harrison. The verdict has attracted a great deal of international attention questioning whether the verdict was in any way related to the child’s international adoptive status.

“Let me assure the international community that adoptive parents in the United States have the same responsibilities to their adopted children as do biological parents to their biological children,” said Chuck Johnson, NCFA’s vice president and COO. “Likewise, children who are adopted enjoy the very same rights and protection of full citizenship under the law as do children born in the United States. We are confident that Chase Harrison’s status as an adopted child in no way influenced the judge’s ruling or diminished the seriousness surrounding this case.”

“NCFA fully understands how difficult it may be for some to accept this verdict as appropriate and just. However, the number of successful adoptions whereby Russian children have found safe, loving and permanent homes weighs heavily on the side of accepting the Harrison case as unfortunate, tragic and sad – but is in no way representative of the overwhelming majority of U.S. adoptions of Russian-born children,” Johnson said.

NCFA encourages a calm and rational response to the verdict, and hopes that the Russian government will continue to work with the United States government and the American adoption community to keep the adoption process between Russia and the United States transparent, safe and successful for the benefit of thousands of Russian-born children. Those who would suffer most from a disruption of Russian adoptions are the thousands of innocent orphans who otherwise would have been adopted into loving American homes.

While industry may feel threatened, this very press release shows how blithely unaware the industry can be in relation to the very rights and long term well being of the children it places.

Let’s start with what may be the single most amazing quote I’ve ever heard out of NCFA:

…children who are adopted enjoy the very same rights and protection of full citizenship under the law as do children born in the United States.

This is an astounding statement, clearly, provably, patently false.

Adopted people (whether international or domestic) such as myself do NOT enjoy the same rights under American law as the non-adopted.

Non-adopted people, as but one example, do not have records pertaining to their identity and birth confiscated by the state and held under lock and key in all but 6 states (Alaska, Oregon, Kansas, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine.) They do not face legal hurdles and barriers such as having to obtain a court order to see their original unaltered birth certificates. We do not receive equal treatment under the law in regard to our authentic documentation.

This affects adopted people in numerous everyday ways from the hoops some of us must jump through in attempts to get something as basic as a driver’s license, to attempts to gain pensions.

The ways in which those adopted in this country do not have equal rights as the non-adopted in this country forms of long list of grievances. Groups such as Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization owe their entire existence to the fact that we do not receive equal treatment under law.

As for adoptees and citizenship protections, perhaps the folks over at NCFA would care to explore Pound Pup Legacy’s ongoing list of deportation cases of international adoptees. Under the Bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security has stepped up the deportation of adoptees with criminal convictions. As for one reason or another (often lack of knowledge that gaining such was necessary, or in other cases, being told the child already had citizenship) these adoptees never received their American citizenship, the the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, applies to them, and they have been shipped back to their countries of origin, even if they left as infants and know nothing of the culture or language.

The case of Joao Herbert being doubly sad in that after being deported to Brazil, he was murdered.

In short, if NCFA thinks adoptees “enjoy the very same rights and protection of full citizenship under the law as do children born in the United States” they either haven’t been paying attention, or are outright lying to protect their industry.

Next, let’s tackle this line:

NCFA encourages a calm and rational response to the verdict, and hopes that the Russian government will continue to work with the United States government and the American adoption community to keep the adoption process between Russia and the United States transparent, safe and successful for the benefit of thousands of Russian-born children.

For starters, you gotta love the way NCFA attempts to portray any response to the verdict other than that which they want as perhaps irrational, or not coming from a calm (and clear headed) position.

Such framing, of course denies the ongoing history of adoption policy between the two countries. In the wake of other Russian adoptees dying due to the actions of their adopters, Russia has taken steps to keep the process open while trying to improve information flow. The Russians government has responded “calmly” and “rationally” time and again, yet despite their efforts at making the process work, certain aspects are still not working.

The Dmitry Yakolev case makes it abundantly clear, adoptions to the US from Russia are NOT “transparent.” Despite the previous Russian tightening of restrictions, attempting to ensure that information about the disposition of Russian adoptees (who are Russian citizens) in the US would be reported back, Russian officials learned of Dmitry’s death not from the agency, European Adoption Consultants, (EAC) responsible for maintaining tabs on Dmitry’s health and well being, but from the newspapers after his death.

By any measure, clearly an information break down occurred. EAC failed to live up to it’s obligations.

The process has not been “transparent”, “safe” or “successful” in relation to Dmitry and a growing list of other Russian adoptees.

Russia’s response to such HAS ALREADY been measured and maintained the process in light of previous calls for a full moratorium.

The Russian embassy had a representative in the courtroom throughout the process, watching closely as Miles Harrison’s trial played out. In many ways, they gave the American judicial system every chance to get this right. In light of Harrison taking the full walk, industry reactionaries such as NCFA have no business feigning shock and displeasure at the Russian response. It’s been a long time coming. The Russians have kept the process open time and again in the face of earlier calls for closing to American adoptions.

Will the Harrison case be the straw the broke the camel’s back? That remains to be seen.

Finally NCFA pleads (on behalf of its member organizations):

Those who would suffer most from a disruption of Russian adoptions are the thousands of innocent orphans who otherwise would have been adopted into loving American homes.

The adoption of Russian children to the US had already been declining (just as the rest of international adoption marketplace has slowed:)

Only about 1,800 Russian children were adopted by Americans this year — down from a high of almost 6,000 in 2004.

NCFA pleading for American market share is an industry pleading for its lifeblood. Agencies need kids (particularly white kids) to place. With both Guatemala and Vietnam closing earlier this year, the industry is scrambling for sources. Terminology such as “innocent” and “orphans” are being used as part of an emotional appeal.

I’ve written repeatedly here on my blog about how terminology such as “orphan” means one thing in the American psyche and common usage and quite another under American and international adoption law.

When NCFA utilizes terminology such as “innocent” they are playing on readers sympathies in in relation to “justice.” They are building a construct where-under “innocent” “orphans” would be “punished” by “denying them adoptions” as if it were a child’s “right’ to be adopted.

This relies upon the twin mythologies of a newly constructed out of whole cloth child’s “right” to be adopted, and that of adoption as always providing some form of a “better life,” both of which while devised over decades by the industry are simply that, mythologies.

Far from a “right to be adopted,” the more internationally agreed upon definition of children’s rights (despite the U.S. having not signed on to such) is predicated upon the right of a child to grow up with the context of their biological family save “exceptional circumstances.” See this brief piece of the broader discussion of such I wrote earlier:

Note the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The ‘rights’ being spelled out for children entail more far more than A family, instead the ‘right’ refers to growing up within their family of origin barring “exceptional circumstances.”

See principle 6, in particular, which states in part:

He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, … a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.

And as to that “better life?”

That is predicated upon a form of American nationalism that assumes a child will inherently be “better of” with an American adoptive couple, or within a context of American wealth.

To quote Socorro Treviño, the mother-in-law of a Mexican womyn who sold her newborn to an international adoption baby broker who in turn, was selling Mexican babies into American adoptions:

“A better life?” she said in Spanish while surveying the dilapidated house around her. “If that was the case we would have given everyone here up for adoption.

Adoption must not be offered up as the “better life” solution to global poverty and parental desperation.

NCFA’s “solution” to the problems of those growing up in Russian orphages is relocation and redistribution into wealthy American families.

The Harrison’s paid “about 80,000” to adopt Dmitry.

His biological mother was described as “mentally disabled:”

“We received Dima in 2006 straight from the labor ward,” said Natalya Vishnevskaya, the head doctor at the orphanage. “His 18-year-old mother signed a refusal of the child and disappeared. It’s unclear where she is now. She is a mentally disabled, lonely young girl who was also raised in an orphanage.”

Which is to say the problems Dmitry’s original parents (no mention of the father at all) faced (or still faces) are far larger than simply picking up Dmitry and passing him along to American adopters.

NCFA and it’s member agencies rely upon that desperation, that lack of services and support to gain children, or “product” for their industry.

They have no interest in working to change the circumstances and situation that brought Dmitry to the point of adoptability, as doing so would fundamentally undermine their very industry.

Instead, they structure their argument in hopes that their income stream remain intact by co-opting the non-existent voices of infants made available to the adoption process themselves, arguing business must go on unimpeded “for the sake of the children.”

Am I surprised by such?

Not in the least. It’s precisely what industry can be counted on to do.

Industry has shown, it only speaks up when its own interests are at stake, not when the genuine rights and needs of those adopted are at stake (other than its attempts to block them.)

If anything, NCFA has show it is often unaware of the real state of, cares nothing for, or more often, works in direct opposition to adoptee rights.

Again, hardly surprising, in that NCFA was intentionally created as a reaction to the prospect of adoptees gaining access to their authentic documentation. NCFA was created by the industry to once again slam those doors of access shut.

As for NCFA itself, it is an industry trade group and lobby founded in 1980, as a direct reaction to the 1979/1980 Carter administration’s Draft Model State Adoption Act (DMSAA) which had called for restoring records access by adoptees to their own adoption records. NCFA was created very specifically by industry interests to derail and defeat the open records provisions of the DMSAA.

For NCFA to now spout off about how adoptees “enjoy the very same rights” is nothing if not bitterly ironic.

So here we have it, NCFA utilizing the very adoptee rights they have fought so hard against and testified in opposition to in state legislatures across the country in a last ditch effort to attempt to keep Russian adoptions open.

Clearly, they have no shame.

If you are searching for general information about the case and the verdict please see my earlier overview post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry.

***
Перевести на русский

***

This post is an update to an ongoing series of posts I have made about the death of Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and the agency that placed him, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). EAC is one of the largest international adoption agencies in the world and the top agency in Russia (and had been in Guatemala.)

Russian law requires officials be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Dmitry is the the second Russian child EAC had placed who died apparently as a result of actions by their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham was killed by her adoptive mother in 1988. You can read my previous posts about Dmitry and EAC by clicking here (read from bottom to top, as entries are in reverse chronological order.)

***

Unlike the Russian response, Americans are reacting very differently, be that in American media reports, or in comment threads.

First and foremost, the American audience fails to understand the important responsibilities an adoptive couple take on when they sign on to adopting a child. Perhaps the primary difference between a child in an adoptive situation and children born to their parents is that adoptive families are on some level (allegedly at least) vetted. They have agreed to take on the task of raising a child that is not biologically their own. They have had to prove that they will make “fit” parents to the child that will eventually come to be placed with them. When they sign the adoption papers, they have intentionally taken on the responsibility for that child.

Add in the international adoption component, in the case of Russian adoptees, they retain their Russian citizenship, and what you have is essentially, an American couple that has jumped through enough hoops as to agree to take on not only raising a child who is not their own flesh and blood, but is additionally a citizen of another country. This carries with it many responsibilities, above and beyond what biological parents face. Be that reporting obligations back to the country of origin, or obligations to be attentive, and to provide safety and security. Adoptive parents sign their names to promises pertaining to the ongoing disposition and welfare of the child they are adopting.

This is the key that differentiates Dmitry’s death from that of any of the number of sad stories wherein American families lose track of their kids and leave them to roast to death in the back seats of cars in the summertime.

The Harrisons had undergone a process of establishing them as “fit” parents, and taken on the responsibility of raising a Russian child. They entered into such intentionally and made the case for their “worthiness” to take Dmitiry.

This case then, is inherently about adoption. And the responsibilities adoptive parents take on not only in relation to the child, and the agency, but in international adoption where citizenship is maintained, to that country of origin.

Quoting Marley again:

He was a Russian citizen who died of neglect (accidental or not) at the hands of a person who was deemed “responsible” enough to adopt someone else’s child by the Russian and US governments and a prominent …adoption agency.

In light of the additional ongoing background history of Russian adoptees dying as a result of actions of their American adopters (see Marley’s Forever Family, Forever Dead case profiles on her memoriam blog for Russian adoptees abused and murdered by their forever families- NIKTO NE ZABYT — NICHTO NE ZABYTO.) Dmitry’s death did not take place in a vacuum, it took place amidst a broader history of Russian adoptees dying in America and previous calls for a full moratorium on American adoptions. Instead of Russia closing to American adopters, it instituted a series of restrictions in an attempt to maintain information relating to the disposition of Russian adoptees in America available back to the country of origin.

After Dmitry’s death European Adoption Consultants, the agency responsible for placing Dmitry with the Harrisons failed to live up to its obligation to report his death. Media reports say the Russians learned of his death from the newspapers.

The broader background and historical context his death occurred within, as well as the agency obligations have been given little to no attention in the American media reports in the aftermath. While American papers are mentioning the Russians’ displeasure at the verdict, they are either unaware of or overlooking the broader issues and pre-existing history.

Instead, much of the media and the comments from the general public have focused upon how leaving kids in hot cars is not an uncommon occurrence. Many commenters fail to see the inherent connection between Dmitry’s death and the obligations entailed in adopting at all, going so far as to say this case is to them, unrelated to adoption. (Marely’s comment threads are also littered with such.)

None-the-less, there is nothing about this that is not inherently interwoven with adoption, specifically international adoption. Dmitry’s death was an international incident from the moment information about it first surfaced.

I urge readers to read the full articles I’ve pulled mere quotes from below, and to additionally explore comment threads on the articles where available.

***

I’ll begin with this article from the Loudoun Times-Mirror- Not guilty verdict of Purcellville man could become international incident. It was originally written Dec. 18th, but has been updated today. It’s actually one of the better articles, but for the problematic premise the articles rests upon.

As I wrote in part I, yesterday’s blog post:

…while the American media seems to be treating the trial outcome as sparking an international incident (and many of them do not understand that Dmitry’s death is part of a much broader pattern,) the Russians, like many of us here in “Adoptionland” always understood, it was Dmitry’s death itself that was the international incident. Everything thereafter is just the consequences, blowback, and damage control in the aftermath thereof.

Thereby the headline and premise “…could become international incident” misses the mark. Otherwise the article is better than most.

A recent ruling made by a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge is developing into a potential international incident.

In this article, we find the cost of Dmitry’s adoption and details of his citizenship:

The child, originally named Dmitry Yakolev and later re-named Chase Harrison, was adopted from Russia at a cost to the Harrisons of about $80,000. At the time of his death the toddler was still a Russian citizen, according to the Russian Embassy.

“He would have remained a Russian citizen until he reached legal age, at which time he could renounce his citizenship if he chose,” said Yevgeniy Khorishko, press secretary for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C. “It is just awful that the person who killed this child has been pardoned,” Khorishko added.

…

 

On Dec. 18, Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned Harrison’s acquittal in an official statement.

“We are deeply angered by the verdict of the Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia. We consider it to be repulsive and unprecedented, even if in this case — unlike in others — it was criminal negligence that led to a tragic outcome, rather than deliberate ill-treatment. The decision of a judge, who did not see the crime in Harrison’s actions and released him without any penalty, goes beyond any legal and moral framework,” it stated.

…

On Dec. 17, Ney ruled that although Harrison was “plainly negligent,” he did not display “negligence so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a callous disregard for human life,” one of the standards in defining an involuntary manslaughter charge in Virginia.

And finally we come to what may have been the actual reason Dmitry ultimately died, Miles Harrison was preoccupied and simply not thinking about Dmitry that morning. Harrison had been on the cell phone over and over on his drive in to work, making or receiving 13 phone calls during the drive in to work during which he drove right past the exit for Dmitry’s daycare. Judge Ney went so far as to say “that based on court testimony, Harrison was not himself on july 8th.” Clearly he was preoccupied, leaving Dmitry in the car unattended already once before that morning as he dropped off his dry cleaning.

Harrison has said that he was deeply concerned that day about a contract that his office was negotiating with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The contract was the largest government contract that his company, Project Solutions Group in Herndon, had ever pursued.

In court, Ney said that Harrison was “clueless” and “oblivious” that the child had been left in the vehicle, and that Harrison believed him to be at a day-care facility in Ashburn.

Ney called that belief “tragic and erroneous” but called Harrison a “dutiful and devoted father” and said that “the only atonement can take place in his heart and soul.” He added that “no finding of involuntary manslaughter will bring this child back to life.”

But Russian officials are demanding that America toughen its policies toward adopted children’s rights and are outraged with the incident.

“People in Moscow are now thinking about changing the rules of adoption for Russian children if the country they go to cannot provide protection for them, and the person who kills them is let go as if he is innocent,” Khorishko told the Times.

Next I’ll back up date and pull a story from the DC Examiner dated December 17th, Father acquitted of manslaughter in July death of adopted toddler, in which we find the first mention I’ve found of Miles Harrison’s behavior the evening of the death, with mentions of both his own culpability and “god” taken from the court documents:

At about 5 p.m., when a co-worker told Harrison that Chase was in the SUV, he ran from his work desk to the parking lot, threw open the car door and tried to revive his son. Chase was a Russian-born child who had been adopted by Harrison and his wife, Carol, only three months earlier.

That evening at the hospital, a Fairfax County detective and hospital employees overheard Harrison calling out with remorse.

“I want my son. I left my son, I left him in the car. Look at what I did. I left him in the car,” Harrison could be heard saying, according to court documents. “I can’t live like this. How did this happen. … God take me. He should not have taken my son.”

Prosecutors argued that Harrison might not have wanted to harm his son but he wasn’t willing to take on the responsibilities of being a father.

In another piece from the 17th,on WJLA, the local ABC affiliate, we find a few brief statements from Harrison’s sister Jane Kershner and Harrison’s lawyer Peter Greenspun’s remarkable comment the “callousness” standard, on see Father Not Guilty in Son’s Death in Hot SUV:

“The facts do not satisfy the standard imposed,” said Judge Ney, calling Harrison “oblivious” and “plainly negligent”. But the judge said Harrison was without “callous disregard for human life.”

“There was not a callousness in his actions which is what the law requires,” Peter Greenspun, Harrison’s defense attorney, said.

…

His sister, Jane Kershner, spoke for the family.

“It’s time for our family to move on to the grieving for my nephew and their son,” she said. “He was a happy and loving wonderful little boy. He was lucky enough to have wonderful parents who were going to help him grow and become, you know, more than he already was.”

The family physician was another of the trial witnesses:

Other character witnesses, including the family physician, also testified on Harrison’s behalf, describing the family as very attentive to their son.

“I think the family was a very engaged family, very interested in the care of the child and we’re involved and very active throughout the whole adoption process,” Dr. Patrick Mason, the family physician, said. “They seemed to be very engaged in the child’s care.”

Be sure to watch the video connected to this piece as well.

In this piece Purcellville Man Acquitted In Death of Son in Car there are further quotes from Miles Harrison’s sister. She mentions Harrison having been “charged almost immediately after the July 8 incident” which clearly, if you read through my timeline of how Harrison being served the warrant was actually delayed seems quite the stretch:

A family friend exclaimed, “Thank God,” as Harrison struggled to catch his breath upon hearing the verdict.

Harrison, 49, of Purcellville, declined to comment afterward. But his family said he and his wife, Carol, could now grieve the loss of Chase, a process that had been delayed because Harrison was charged almost immediately after the July 8 incident.

Chase “was a happy, loving and wonderful child,” said Jane Kershner, Harrison’s sister, “and he was lucky enough to have wonderful parents.

Then there’s this stunner of a statement:

For having waited so long to become a father, Miles jumped in with both feet and became the best father I’ve seen.

The same article goes into Dmitry’s arrival in America and being placed at a local KinderCare daycare which was by no means any kind of specialized program dealing with kids who had spent their infancy in Russian orphanages:

After three arduous trips to Russia, the Harrisons brought Chase home to Loudoun on March 21. The toddler was developmentally delayed from having spent much of his first 18 months in an orphanage, and Kershner testified that she helped the family locate a day-care center in Ashburn that would help him catch up. He started there in late June.

This is important, as it means Dmitry had only been attending daycare for what may have been a matter of weeks, between “late June” and July 8th.

The article details Harrison leaving Dmitry in the car during the trip to the dry cleaner:

Harrison testified that on July 8, he dressed Chase in a T-shirt and shorts, put sunscreen on him and strapped him in the rear car seat of his GMC Yukon. Harrison said he stopped at a dry cleaner in Purcellville, leaving Chase in the vehicle, then drove to Herndon. He had made or received 13 calls on his cellphone and drove past the exit for Chase’s day care, focused on a large work project and problems with employees.

It also may help clarify the conflicting media reports that Harrison during his initial “collapse” was either having a reaction to the overwhelming circumstances or had had a heart attack:

Harrison, overwhelmed with grief, was briefly hospitalized when police feared he was having a heart attack.

Finally, we get some insight into the legal reasoning of both the prosecutor and the judge:

Prosecutors declined to offer Harrison a plea to a lesser charge, and Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Katherine E. Stott said parents should be held to a higher standard because they hold a child’s life in their hands. “The fact that he disregarded his duties,” Stott said, “when these circumstances are likely to cause injury of death, shows callous disregard.”

In his ruling, Ney cited a 1930 Virginia Supreme Court decision that a person “who accidentally kills another, even though he may be chargeable with some actionable negligence, is not guilty of a crime, unless his negligence is so gross and culpable as to indicate a callous disregard of human life and of the probable consequences of his act.”

Also see the long comment thread attached to the article.

Washington Post’s Potomac Confidential- Washington’s Hour of Talk Power (transcript) Dec 18th- “Nay of the Day”

So let’s get this straight: A guy leaves his 21-month-old baby in a steaming hot car for an entire day and the kid dies and some judge decrees that this is not gross negligence and does not reflect a callous disregard for human life?

If the decision in the Miles Harrison case is not the Nay of the Day, then please tell me what is. I don’t doubt that the man loved his child or that he feels unspeakably awful about what he did or that he is otherwise in many ways a fine person (though I have severe doubts about his qualifications for parenthood), but if the law doesn’t consider his actions criminal negligence, then the term doesn’t have much meaning.

And finally this commentary from today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher, Why Was Father Who Killed Son In Car Acquitted?

He literally forgot what he had promised to do when he entered the role of father. If that’s not callous disregard, what is?

See the comment thread following the piece as well.

If you are searching for general information about the case and the verdict please see my earlier overview post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry.

***

Перевести на русский

***

This post is an update to an ongoing series of posts I have made about the death of Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and the agency that placed him, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). EAC is one of the largest international adoption agencies in the world and the top agency in Russia (and had been in Guatemala.)

Russian law requires officials be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Dmitry is the the second Russian child EAC had placed who died apparently as a result of actions by their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham was killed by her adoptive mother in 1988. You can read my previous posts about Dmitry and EAC by clicking here (read from bottom to top, as entries are in reverse chronological order.)

***

This round up of some of the Russian responses is not going to be exhaustive by any stretch. That said, I am going to pull a few articles and along with video give a taste of how big a story the Harrison acquittal has been. I’m going to focus on sources in English as I’m primarily attempting to given my American audience more of a feel for how the Russians are reacting, but obviously there are other sources as well, many in other languages. This is a truly international story with interest and implications far beyond the US and Russian media markets. Find the online translation tool of your preference and explore.

I’ll get to some of the American, and adoption industry responses separately, but it’s important to note, while the American media seems to be treating the trial outcome as sparking an international incident (and many of them do not understand that Dmitry’s death is part of a much broader pattern,) the Russians, like many of us here in “Adoptionland” always understood, it was Dmitry’s death itself that was the international incident. Everything thereafter is just the consequences, blowback, and damage control in the aftermath thereof.

Nor am I going to add much commentary in this, I just want readers to see the pieces and go explore them for themselves.

By way of introduction I’ll include two paragraphs from From ABC 7 local news here in the DC area- Russia Protests Acquittal of Virginia father in Adopted Child’s Death

Russia is reacting angrily to the acquittal of an Virginia man charged in the death of his 21-month-old son, adopted from Russia.

…

The verdict Wednesday sparked a whirlwind of outrage in Russia, with the case topping newscasts on state-run TV, who refer to the boy by his Russian name, Dima. Some lawmakers on Thursday called for tightening adoption laws, or even a total moratorium on adoptions, in particular by Americans.

***

On to the direct sources themselves-

Back in July, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation issued an initial press release in response to Dmitry’s death- 7/14/08 press release.

While I have not been able to find an official release in the wake of the Harrison acquittal, this is the page such would like appear upon when such does come out. On it, readers can also find other previous releases speaking to the history of foreign adoptions and tightening restrictions thereof.

Video: Car-kill daddy acquitted– Russia Today

The Moscow Times- Tough New Rules for Adoptive U.S. Parents (There are many interesting details in this article, I’m merely going to pull a few quotes.)

The government will toughen regulations for Americans wishing to adopt Russian children after a U.S. court acquitted a Virginia man of felony charges in the death of his newly adopted Russian son earlier this year, officials said Thursday.

…

Russia tightened controls over adoptions a few years ago after several children died at the hands of U.S. parents, and Wednesday’s acquittal will lead to a further clampdown, said Alina Levitskaya, head of the Education and Science Ministry’s child welfare department.

The verdict “casts doubts” on adopted children’s rights in the United States and “will lead to a tightening of requirements for the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens,” Levitskaya said in a statement on the ministry’s web site.

The ministry has already prepared an official demand to be sent to the U.S. State Department regarding the adoption of Russian children, Levitskaya said. The statement gave no specifics about possible stricter requirements. Ministry spokesman Alexander Kochnev said by telephone Thursday afternoon that officials were in the process of working out new rules.

Yevgeny Khorishko, spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, said U.S. authorities should appeal the “grievous court ruling acquitting the murderer of an infant Russian citizen,” Interfax reported.

…

In 2005, after the well-publicized deaths of several Russian children at the hands of their adoptive parents in the United States, influential Duma deputies called for a moratorium on all foreign adoptions.

The moratorium never happened, but foreign adoption agencies began facing greater bureaucratic hurdles. Two U.S. adoption agencies were barred from operating in Russia in July, shortly after the death of Harrison’s adoptive child, Chase.

RIA Novosti- Russia slams acquittal of U.S. man over Russian-born son’s death

Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned on Thursday the acquittal in a U.S. court of Miles Harrison over the death of his adopted Russian-born son, and said it would demand a review of the verdict.

“We are deeply appalled by the verdict of the Fairfax court in the state of Virginia. We consider it to be reprehensible and unprecedented, even if in this case, unlike in several previous cases, it was criminal negligence that led to the tragedy rather than intentionally cruel treatment,” the ministry said in a statement.

…

“We will demand that U.S. authorities review the extremely unfair ruling. Further cooperation with the United States in adoption will depend on Washington’s readiness to take practical steps to ease our concerns,” the ministry said.

The statement came after criticism earlier on Thursday by a senior Russian education and social protection official, who said adoption requirements for U.S. nationals would be toughened following the acquittal.

RIA Novosti-Russia to toughen adoption rules for U.S. over Harrison acquittal

“We are outraged by the court ruling and believe it to be totally unjust and unacceptable,” Alina Levitskaya was quoted by the Education and Science Ministry as saying. “It questions the reliability of the U.S. system of protection of adopted children’s rights, and will lead to tougher requirements for U.S. nationals in Russia.”

Levitskaya said the ministry would demand that authorities in the United States step up monitoring of children adopted from Russia. She said the education ministry and the Russian Embassy in the United States would seek a guilty verdict for Harrison.

“When a tragedy occurs, even if through an involuntary action, a severe punishment should be inevitable,” Levitskaya said.

Finally, here are a few last pieces I’m not going to pull quotes from-

RIA Novosti- U.S. man acquitted in death of son adopted from Russia

Russia Today- Adoptive father acquitted of 10-year manslaughter sentence and Russia demands reconsideration of adoptive father’s reprieve

***

Additionally, Marley has also been tracking the Russian reaction see her latest post:

HARRISON VERDICT: A GROWING “INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT”

and has written another post detailing many of the complexities of post placement follow ups and informational reporting, it’s a wonderful backgrounder on the lay of the land realities of reporting back to the country of origin:

RUSSIAN OFFICIALS WANT TO TOUGHEN ADOPTION RULES FOR US AFTER MILES HARRISON ACQUITTED IN DEATH OF DMITRY YAKOLEV

I add my own voice to hers in calling for either a reopening of, or a new investigation into European Adoption Consultants in the wake of their apparent failure to report Dmitry’s death.

Перевести на русский

***

This is one of a series of posts about Dmitry’s death. Please follow my Dmitry Yakolev tag to read more.

***

Marley, over on the Daily Bastardette has already covered the outcome of Miles Harrison’s trial in Virginia earlier today, please see her piece, MILES HARRISON ACQUITTED! for all the sorry details. But this piece here on my blog is going to be something a little different, something perhaps a bit more personal. I’m having trouble finding the words, and well, to be honest, it’s just so damn sad.

I wish I could say I was shocked at the verdict, but I’m not.

Miles Harrison getting off free and clear is unfortunately no surprise. Much as I held out slight hope that there might be actual consequences for his actions, it was not to be.

Dmitry’s short 21 month life began in Russia’s Pechor Pskovsk region.

An article in Komsomolskaya Pravda tells a version of Dmitry’s possible origins:

His biological mother had put him up for adoption immediately after his birth — even though she too was raised in an orphanage. Dima was moved straight from the labor ward to the Pskovsk Regional Orphanage for children with a damaged central nervous system.

“We received Dima in 2006 straight from the labor ward,” said Natalya Vishnevskaya, the head doctor at the orphanage. “His 18-year-old mother signed a refusal of the child and disappeared. It’s unclear where she is now. She is a mentally disabled, lonely young girl who was also raised in an orphanage.”

At one point prior to becoming eligible for international adoption, a Russian couple had considered taking him in. Instead he eventually found himself on the long journey to the United States as an international adoptee.

He was adopted from the Pechora City Children’s Home, in the Psov area. The homestudy was done by Adoption Connections, Falls Church, Virginia and social worker Christine Hessinger. (See “Chase’s” entry here by way of citation.)

Not long thereafter, Dmitry was placed by Margaret Cole-Hughes’s European Adoption Consultants, based in Strongsville, Ohio, EAC is one of the largest adoption agencies in the world, and the top agency dealing in Russian adoptees. Before the Guatemala adoption process closed down amidst charges of fraud, baby buying and outright kidnapping, EAC was the number one importer of Guatemalan children from there as well.

Unfortunately Dmitry is not the only Russian adoptee European Adoption Consultants had placed that died due to the actions of their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham had also been placed by EAC and killed by her adoptive mother, Laura Higgenbotham in Vermont in 1988. She ended up pleading “no contest” to a charge of involuntary manslaughter and received a 1 year prison sentence after having intentionally slammed 3 year old Logan’s head into a wall.

I wrote a little about EAC’s Russian adoption program here:

…European Adoption Consultants, 12608 Alameda Drive, Strongville, Ohio 44149.

Be sure to see their Russian program here, which flatly states “The referral process for infant boys is quick right now”, their Russian program news page, and their FAQ under the question “Q: Is EAC licensed to do adoptions in Russia?” The “Returning Home to the USA – Russia – Word Document” off this page lays out some of the follow up visits etc expected after a Russian adoptee has ben brought to the States. Finally, this link, view the letter, will take you to a confirmation letter to EAC informing them of their Russian Accreditation (English version is on page 2.)

Their basic intake application forms, both online (click the “apply online” link on this page) and printable, ask questions such as the religious affiliation of prospective adopters and essay questions such as “Briefly explain how you intend to raise your child with religious/moral values” or “Please describe the child that will complete your “forever family.”

EAC vetted Miles and Carol Harrison and cleared them as potential adoptive parents. Apparently they matched EAC’s expectations for raising Dmitry with what they deemed religious/moral values.

According to Miles’ lawyer, Peter Greenspun, the Harrisons made three trips to the orphanage in Russia as part of the adoption process. In time they were given Dmitry, who was renamed “Chase Harrison” and relocated to live with the Harrisons in their Purcellville subdivision in Loudoun County, Virginia home approximately an hour outside of Washington D.C.

Now, I live in the D.C. ‘burbs myself, (though on the Maryland side) and I guess you could say I know a thing or two about the culture here having been a Maryland resident on and off since 1990. This area is littered with “nice families” who live in ‘burbs standard boxy homes like the Harrisons. Perfectly ordinary couples who like the Harrisons, have a husband working as a manager at a consulting firm (in Miles’ case, Project Solutions Group, the parking lot where Dmitry ultimately died. You can find Miles’ work bio here.) and wives who work in one capacity or another with one of the numerous federal agencies (in Carol’s case, the Homeland Security Department,) who have kids just like “Chase” in daycare. They’re a dime a dozen hereabouts. Just another fairly typical Virginia ‘burbs family with a Russian adoptee toddler.

Until that day last July, when everything went horribly wrong.

Dmitry was left in the Harrison’s SUV for almost 9 hours as the temperature climbed, he slowly roasted to death. It’s hard to imagine a worse death, an infant, left strapped into their carrier slowly dying in the heat.

Unfortunately, the actual death itself was nothing extraordinary, each summer a number of kids are left, “forgotten” to die this way.

He had been in the United States for all of approximately 3 months.

To quote Marley:

Dima’s adoption was not yet finalized. He was a Russian citizen who died of neglect (accidental or not) at the hands of a person who was deemed “responsible” enough to adopt someone else’s child by the Russian and US governments and a prominent …adoption agency.

As I wrote earlier:

The Harrisons were still in the state mandated six month supervision period required for international adoptions after Dmitry came from Russia three months ago.

To this day, it remains unknown whether or not Dmitry’s (biological) parents back in Russia have been informed of his death.

What was “extraordinary” were two simultaneous series of events that took place in the aftermath.

1. There was Miles, the adoptive father ultimately responsible for Dmitry’s death. Who, upon realizing what had happened, first tried to resuscitate the child, then “collapsed” (either “in shock” or “of a heart attack” media accounts vary.)

At the time, Herndon Police Lt. Jeff P. Coulter was quoted as saying:

…police are to be called when Harrison is ready to leave the hospital.

“If he needs some short-term treatment to get stabilized, I would not interfere with that. I can certainly understand that might be in order given what’s occurred here,” Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney Ray Morrogh said. “There’s no rush. If he needs treatment he should get it, and then he will face what he has to face.”

He was taken to Reston Hospital Center, then on to the police station for questioning where he “collapsed” a second time. He was then returned to the Reston facility, then transported to an undisclosed private hospital. The following day, he had still not been taken into custody:

The man whose 21-month-old son died after he was left in a hot car for several hours Tuesday remained hospitalized yesterday and had not been taken into custody, authorities said.

The “undisclosed private hospital” of course, turned out to be a “private psychiatric hospital” where Miles Harrison essentially holed up, unserved by law enforcement.

Fairfax County prosecutors obtained a manslaughter warrant for Harrison but decided not to serve it while he was hospitalized. But Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh said Friday: “We can’t hold off indefinitely. He’s going to have to be arraigned in the near future, and then the case will take its course.”

During his time safely kept far from both the media and the warrant, the Harrisons engaged high profile attorney Peter D. Greenspun. See Marley’s article SPUNNING INTO CONTROL: MILES HARRISON HIRES HIGH PROFILE DEFENSE ATTORNEY PETER D. GREENSPUN.

(Again quoting from the same article cited above):

Harrison has hired veteran criminal defense lawyer Peter D. Greenspun to represent him. Greenspun said he didn’t understand the urgency to bring Harrison to court.

By July 23rd, Greenspun said Harrison had gone directly from the psychiatric hospital to his hearing at the courthouse, portraying his client as “still pretty fragile.” Within hours he was out on $5,000 bail.

Unlike other many other parents, particularly mothers who “forget” kids in cars in the summertime, the defense of Miles Harrison, and the subsequent acquittal, is a study in what being a man, having access to resources and wealth, and having a high profile lawyer can do.

See “What punishment when child dies in hot car?” for an Associated Press analysis of more than 310 fatal incidents in the past 10 years:

“Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26 percent more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads.”

But I digress.

Miles Harrison did not attend Dmitry’s funeral, but a letter written by him was read there. I went into a fair amount of detail in what I consider my most important writing about Dmitry’s death, Dmitry Yakolev’s / Chase Harrison’s death and the lingusistic objectification of adoptees.

In the letter, Harrison described Dmitry thusly:

Chase would “always be our perfect gift.”

To quote but a tiny portion of my own response to such:

Children are not gifts. Not things. Not objects, be that a “gift” from a family of origin in Russia, nor “gift of god”. Adoptees are people. And depersonalizing and depersonifying language such as “gift” is part of the underlying attitude that leads to things such as children being left in cars. After all, if you forget to drop off the dry cleaning (an inanimate object) on the way to work, it’s no biggee. You leave a “gift” in the backseat, even in the summer heat, and it’s no biggee.

But you leave Dmitry, a child in the backseat, in the summer heat, and suddenly everything’s different. Because now we’re talking about Dmitry, a dead child. and that’s larger than I have words for. It’s massive. (Oh, and an international incident.)

Dmitry was a person, and in his memory, the very least that could be done to honour his memory would be a careful reevaluation of the linguistic mess that makes such mistakes(?) easier to commit.

2. Moving on to the second simultaneous series of extraordinary events, there has been the fact that Dmitry’s death is unfortunately part of a much broader pattern of deaths of Russian adoptees. Far from being a stand alone singular event then, Dmitry’s death was but the latest in a series of international incidents of Russian children dying as a result of actions (or inactions) of their American adopters.

See Marley’s blog,

NIKTO NE ZABYT — NICHTO NE ZABYTO

Nobody is forgotten. Nothing is forgotten.
A Memoriam to Russian Adoptees Murdered by their Forever Families

particularly the page detailing the individual case profiles of the children themselves, CASES: FOREVER FAMILY, FOREVER DEAD.

Here on my blog I’ve detailed some of the Russian reaction and ways in which industry, particularly European Adoption Consultants have hunkered down after Dmitry was found dead in the SUV.

According to Russian law officials are required to be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Marley blogged this at the time, WHEN DID THE RUSSIANS KNOW? ANOTHER UPDATE ON DMITRY YAKOLEV/CHASE HARRISON:

…the allegation from Russian authorities that they learned of Dima’s death several days after it happened, and then only from reading about it in then in the newspaper.

From there see her timeline:

According to Kosmoslovkia Prvada:

Interestingly, the boy died Tuesday — one week ago. But news of the tragedy reached Russia only several days later. Employees of the Russian Embassy in the U.S. only learned what had happened from the papers.

For what it’s worth, here’s the news reporting timeline I have. This timeline is based on online news accounts only, and I have no idea when the Ministry or Embassy actually heard the news. I can very well imagine, though, that Embassy and Consular officials got the news from the July 10 WaPo, like most of us did, though Fox 5 and the Fairfax News had done a report on the 9th.

Death: July 8,2008
Fox 5 – July 9, 2008
Fairfax News – July 9, 2008
Washington Post– July 10, 2008
Washington Post – July 11, 2008
Novisti – July 11, 2008

Not until the July 11 WaPo were any Russian comments on the case published, so it appears nobody knew about Dima’s death until the 10th:

(Note that Marley herself was writing about Dmitry by July 10th.)

She also pointed out the Russian July 15th official statement on Dimitry’s death which is particularly pertinent now after Harrison has been acquitted:

On July 15, a full week after Dima’s death, the Russian Foreign Ministry released an official statement (click on “News in English” to get to news site) which reads in part:

And even if in this case, as distinct from several previous, no deliberately cruel treatment of an adopted child is claimed to have been involved, but criminal neglect leading to a tragic outcome, the fact remains – a small citizen of Russia has died. We will duly track the entire course of the investigation and seek to ensure that it is fully objective.

We expect that American law enforcement bodies and the court will thoroughly look into all the causes and circumstances of the tragedy and adopt a just decision. We also hope that the appropriate US social services will draw the necessary conclusions from it.

We have repeatedly called on the American side to conclude a special bilateral agreement on adoptions. Such an international legal document will ensure more effective control over the fate of Russian children taken by adoptive parents to the US. We will persistently keep this issue on the agenda of Russian-American dialogue.

Clearly this is not going to go away. And the fact that it took so long for Russian officials to be informed of Dima’s death does not sit well with the already tense situation regarding Russian-US adoption.

Throughout the trial, a representative from the Russian Embassy was in the courtroom.

Suffice it to say, somehow I doubt the Russians feel “justice was served.” I will be keeping my ear to the ground for rumblings from the Bear in the near future.

As for European Adoption Consultants, despite their failure to immediately report Dmitry’s death, and the Russian investigation, to date they appear to have kept their Russian accreditation. On this same link you can find the text of EAC’s two brief front page mentions of Dmitry’s death. All memory of him has long since been scrubbed from their page. Today, in the aftermath of their “forever family” client Miles Harrison getting off the EAC webpage makes no mention of the case that triggered an international investigation into their agency.

As for the acquittal itself? Today’s Washington Post gives a few details about the standard and how Fairfax Circuit Court Judge R. Terrence Ney ruled Miles’ Harrison’s actions did not meet the standard:

Miles Harrison, 49, collapsed to his knees moments after Fairfax Circuit Court Judge R. Terrence Ney declared that Harrison’s conduct did not meet the legal standard for manslaughter.

…

The standard under Virginia law for involuntary manslaughter is “negligence so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a callous disregard for human life.”

“The court does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of involuntary manslaughter have been met. For this reason, the defendant is found not guilty,” Ney concluded.

…

The standard for involuntary manslaughter is “negligence so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a callous disregard for human life,” Ney said. Greenspun said the case was an accident, negligence but not gross negligence. Ney said that accidents are blameless and that negligence implies fault.

The prosecutor said: “This is a case that involves parental responsibility. A case where an adult has voluntarily taken on the care of another life. . . . This is someone who took on the responsibility for Chase that morning. He put him in a hot car, and then he abandoned him.”

Finally, I want to close by bringing out just a few last details:

Earlier reports had repeatedly mentioned that taking Dmitry to daycare had not been part of Miles Harrison’s normal routine. They had portrayed the way events unfolded that July morning as more of an aberration, wherein Miles would have been responsible for something unusual.

But today’s Washington Post article about the acquittal made it clear, not only was it not an unusual occurrence, it was something Miles had been responsible for “several times” within the week before Dmitry’s death:

But Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Katherine E. Stott said Harrison had taken Chase to day care several times in the previous week, had left him in the car while dropping off laundry and had made or received 13 phone calls while driving.

Earlier, Greenspun had portrayted him as:

distracted by work problems that morning

Clearly, wherever Harrison’s mind was that morning, it was not on the boy he had brought over from Russia.

Core to the Harrison defense was Greenspun’s tactic of scheduling “37 witnesses to testify to Harrison’s character.”

I was not in the courtroom myself, but whether or not all 37 actually spoke, certainly there were enough, from the Kinder-care worker where Dmitry had been in daycare to Miles Harrison’s own mother coming in to testify on his behalf.

(As a girl originally from the Buckeye State, Ohio, myself, I find the constant regaling of media with tales of how much Miles and Dmitry enjoyed the OSU fight song together, from the letter read at the funeral to today’s Post article revolting. It’s purely a tactic to give personality to non-verbal Dmitry and portray him as having been “happy” with the man who killed him.)

In his ruling, Fairfax Circuit Court Judge R. Terrence Ney made two very telling statements:

“no prison term is going to cause more pain than that which he has already suffered.”

and

“The only true atonement here can only take place within his heart and soul”

Seems to me, Judge Ney should had been less concerned with the state of Miles Harrison’s soul and instead, more concerned with earthy justice for Dmitry.

***

You can find a full archive of my blog posts on my Dmitry Yakolev tag.

Marley’s posts found by searching her site for either Dmitry Yakolev or Chase Harrison

This year the folks putting on the second, of this particular incarnation’s, “Adoptee Rights Demonstration” will be meeting in Philadelphia come July. Their event is timed to coincide with, and focus upon the the National Conference of State Legislators annual meeting.Despite it being a hop, skip, and a jump away from me, I will not be participating.

Yes, I am what some of you seem to insist upon calling a “longtime” Bastard rights/open records activist. But based on my experience last year, I will not be involved.My reasons are pretty straightforward.

Keep in mind, this is purely my personal take on it. (Your mileage may vary.)

I’ll mention my primary areas of concern with a few details under each. Bear in mind this is not an exhaustive list, it simply lays out some of the more important areas of ongoing concern.

Unanswered financial questions in the wake of last year and questions going into this year:

• Last year, as the Adoptee Rights Demonstration/Day for Adoptee rights was not a legally incorporated organization, and as they had no fiscal agent collecting funds for them, donations to the event went into Kali Coultas’ personal paypal account. To the best of my knowledge, to date there has never been a public disclosure of what happened to those donated funds.There has been no public accounting of how much money was collected, nor where it went. As there has been no organizational requirement to report to the IRS what happened, and no independent auditing has occurred, the finances of the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration” are (again, to the best of my knowledge) not available for any form of public scrutiny.
• As a portion of last year’s fundraising, donors were promised by the Adoptee Rights Demonstration that their names would appear in a Time Picayune full page newspaper advertisement the day of the protest. To the best of my knowledge no newspaper ad was run. Funds were not refunded, nor was any explanation forthcoming from the Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers.
• This year it appears the Adoptee Rights Demonstration still does not have a designated tax status. Unless they are able to find a willing fiscal agent for their activities, the financial black hole of last year may be repeated.

Lack of communications from last year’s organizers:

• I’ve already covered the lack of communication with donors above, but the lack of communication was unfortunately part of a broader pattern.
• Last year, as the protest itself took place, people contacted me (I had resigned by then) asking whether or not the protest had even taken place. Eventually the protest organizers did put up a little information, a few blog posts (some on blogs that have now been made private) etc, but for some who donated but did not attend, they were frustrated by the lack of basic communications from the organizers.One donor commented she was grateful I had put up the newspaper article in that at least she was able to see the organizers hadn’t “run off to Cancun” on the donations. That was the level of frustration I was hearing at the time. (This year they’ve decided to Twitter.)
• Last year’s “Adoptee Rights Demonstration/Day for Adoptee Rights” web-page never listed who the people responsible for the event actually were. Thus due to the lack of publicly available role designations, most people never knew who was responsible for the event itself. (That has changed this year, see below.)

Shifting event premise, conceptual, tactical, and strategic problems (not “mission creep,” mission losing focus and devolving):

• For starters, last year not even one national or international adoptee rights membership organization endorsed the event that finally ended up taking place in New Orleans. While what happened there may have represented the interests of the individuals involved (gathered from message boards etc), it did not represent nor speak on behalf of any segment of the broader pre-existing movement for adoptee rights and open records.
• The initial vision laid out for the Adoptee Rights Demonstration was that it be a mass action event. As Ron pointed out, there have been many small demonstrations through the years, ultimately they often serve to work at cross purposes with activists’ own organizational goals. They drain already scarce time and resources and often end up making support for your cause look weak.This was precisely one of the key problems last year’s Adoptee Rights Demonstration suffered from. Turnout was marginal (the Times Picayune reported “about 60 protesters,” though people who attended reported that was more like over the course of the day, not all at once).The bottom line is, there is no adoptee rights mass movement waiting in the wings somewhere to show up for such an event. Instead of learning from that, and focusing energy and resources on what those already working for open records do best, work state by state precisely the way we have to build relationships with Legislators (not brief encounters at an event conference booth) and local coalitions towards gaining open records, the idea of a non-mass action demonstration/sign holding by however many show up outside coupled with “hit and run” brief encounters with legislators booth inside an exhibit hall is offered up as a panacea. Working locally, with those who know the lay of the land in their own states is in my opinion a much more efficient use of resources at this point.I was willing to sign on last year based on the mass-action model. Clearly the current Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers have abandoned that, as no such vision has been put forward.
• One of the core components Ron articulated in envisioning last year’s Adoptee Rights Demonstration was the concept of putting “pressure” on legislators and utilizing “pressure tactics.” Pressure enough to force the issue was always fully interconnected with the concept of both mass actions and “mass movement” sized participation. “Pressure” meant making the open records demand unavoidable, something that would have to be addressed.By the time what was left of the organizing committee made it to New Orleans last year, any concept of “pressure” was no longer a component of the event, it had devolved to a few individuals sign holding, spacing themselves apart in front of the convention hall in a vain attempt to appear larger than their small numbers betrayed.The idea of the booth inside the event was always strategized in tandem with mass action events staged over the course of the week outside the hall.Strategically, it’s important then, to evaluate whether the expenditure and effort to continue still makes sense in the absence of the ability to apply pressure. (Letter writing and “pressure” are altogether different things.)
• Supposedly part of the entire purpose for the many donors to raise the money it took to get a booth inside the National Conference of State Legislators annual meeting staffed by the few people who were going to be inside the event was to gauge the potential support of legislators and and construct a list of potential contacts to follow up with after the event itself. If there has been ANY follow up on the heels of last years event, Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers have failed to communicate that to the outside world.This year’s organizers apparently want to outsource that follow up back out to ARD supporters: “a live Twitter feed of state representatives that we spoke with, providing on the spot reporting.* Protesters and supporters will be able to follow up with the representatives who met with us, to remind them how important you view this issue.” Which begs the question, if follow-up contact to the legislators is going to be done by folks back home anyway, then why should they spend the big bucks to send people to staff a booth in Philly to Twitter back who to contact? People back home ALREADY know who to contact and can schedule actual meetings with their representatives to gauge their support.Why on earth would “protesters and supporters” actually need to lay out the expenditures to do the Philly event, where those staffing the booth will have perhaps at best mere minutes to talk with legislators? How does this make any economic sense at all? (Other than for those who want a nice little vacation in Philly anyway, where they can hang out with their online message board adoptee friends, that is.)
• The real bottom line is, for both last year’s event and this year’s what is the real cost/benefit analysis in relation to stated goals?Now admittedly if all your goals are to sign hold and twitter, and write letters, and have a designated booth sitter spend maybe two minutes talking with your home state representative, then if you can get past all the other issues with the event then maybe this is just the thing for you.On the other hand, if you think sign holding only makes sense under conditions, when it strategically can be used to greatest advantage, you don’t need a twitter feed to tell you about contacting your rep (where they stand can usually be determined by a phone call to their aide,) you don’t need an event to tell you to write letters, and you find raising money for the purposes of being one of many booths in an exhibition hall is not the most effective use of such, and you find the other issues with the proposed event and those proposing it that give you pause, then maybe this is not where you want to be. It’s all about measuring outcomes in relation to stated goals.Last year, what happened in New Orleans by the time it finally occurred bore little resemblance to what the Day for Adoptee Rights/Adoptee Rights Demonstration had set out to be. By any measure, it had aspects of outright wasted resources, such as the park permit for a mass movement that never materialized. (And no, much as some over there would like to blame Bastard Nation for such, that’s merely scapegoating.)

Lingering ethical issues:

• Last year without organizers’ knowledge or consent, Abrazo Adoption Associates set up a facebook fundraising page that fundraised utilizing the name of our event into Abrazo’s own account.When the facebook fundraising was revealed to the organizing committee working on the Adoptee Rights Demonstration by one of the organizers who not only had a pre-exisiting relationships with Abrazo, but then defended Abrazo’s actions from her position within the organizing committee itself, the Abrazo fundraising became one of several factors that led to more than half of the organizing committee resigning. The minority that remained went ahead with last year’s protest in New Orleans which Abrazo related personnel attended, socializing with the remaining organizers over the course of the event.For those of us who left, industry co-optation of and (non-disclosed) fundraising off of the event made our continued involvement impossible. At least some of us who resigned have come to the conclusion that we are unwilling to work with last years organizers again, not merely due to the ethical issues raised by industry co-optation, but also for having been blindsided by an organizer within the committee itself. (Blogposts from the time concerning the Abrazo fundraising can be accessed via my Abrazo Adoption Associates tag.)This year, they appear to have learned from the Abrazo fiasco and have added a new line to their “Donate” page: “The Adoptee Rights Demonstration does not accept donations from adoption agencies or their employees.”
• While I have barely blogged about it, many of the blog comments and message board comments by those that remained as the organizing committee after we left, directed back at us were not merely vicious, they were potentially defamatory. While last year’s remaining organizers are welcome to hold political disagreements with those of us who left, personal attacks and petty vindictive behaviours move beyond the realm of political differences. The treatment I myself experienced and saw directed at some of those who stepped back from the event was well, in a word ugly. Much of it took place far from the public eye on private message boards and private emails.Other such writings, once publicly available on blogs etc have been revised or removed altogether by those that posted them. I have watched as “Adoptee Rights Demonstration” organizers have attacked longstanding open records activists and spewed invective at Bastard Nation organizationally. Bear in mind, BN has had a longstanding policy against taking industry funding, once it became clear Abrazo money was apparently ALREADY in last year’s Adoptee Rights Demonstration, unbeknownst to some of us then organizers, BN had little choice but to withdraw; and yes this decision also dealt with the simultaneous issue of projected minimal turnout for the event itself.

All that said, credit where credit is due, which is to say, they actually decided to do some of the things we advised last year:

• After the complete mess last year, this year’s organizers have finally taken our advice and decided not to take donations from adoption agencies or their employees. That said, this year’s committee is not a VAST personnel revamp from last year. I guess they just finally came to understand that being industry co-opted wasn’t going to fly.
• Unlike last year, this year they have decided to utilize twitter as their communications vehicle from the event itself.
• And finally, this year, unlike last year, the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration Committee” will no longer be anonymous. They have at least learned from that mistake. This year’s committee consists of:

1. Kali Coultas / Founder
2. Michelle Edmunds
3. Joy Madsen
4. Cathy Robishaw
5. Theresa Hood

I urge readers to carefully research the proposed event in Philadelphia and history of those organizing it before participating or promoting it, and to make up their own minds.

Between the financial, ethical, and strategic questions in the wake of last year, and the viciousness directed at me personally and others I care about, suffice it to say, I have no interest in participating.

Undoubtedly, the predictable response of those currently using the name “adoptee rights demonstration” would come down to (putting it far more politely than they’re likely to) “GOOD, you weren’t invited.”Why “currently using the name… ?” Because it wasn’t always so. I wrote *a* (not “the” by any stretch) history of what the words “Adoptee Rights Demonstration had meant previously, and what the original strategizing for the Adoptee Rights Demonstration had been here: Adoptee Rights Demonstration / Day for Adoptee Rights some history and Gershom’s “storm”.

Originally, the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration” had been associated with both Ron Morgan and Bastard Nation. After the events that unfolded last time around, however, both withdrew their participation.

My personal blogging of what happened in relation to last July’s protest can be found on my Adoptee Rights Demonstration tag.

Why write this? Honestly, why dredge through all this? Particularly when I’d rather just go on about the work I’m already doing?

Well, if for no other reason than a lot of good people put money towards something last year, and were not in any way shape or form given so much as an accounting of where their money went.

As for others of us who put our time and effort into such?Speaking purely for myself here, knowing what I know now? I’ll never do that again.

Will I work towards something effective and strategically thought through? Hell yes, but as to what has become of the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration?”

Not on your life.

The verdict in the Miles Harrison trial has been handed down since this article was originally written. Please see my later post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry for more up to date information concerning the verdict. The article below appears as it was originally posted.

***

Перевести на русский

***

This post is an update to an ongoing series of posts I have made about the death of Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and the agency that placed him, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). EAC is one of the largest international adoption agencies in the world and the top agency in Russia (and had been in Guatemala.)

Russian law requires officials be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Dmitry is the the second Russian child EAC had placed who died apparently as a result of actions by their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham was killed by her adoptive mother in 1988. You can read my previous posts about Dmitry and EAC by clicking here (read from bottom to top, as entries are in reverse chronological order.)

***

By way of an evening round up, no determination was made today, a verdict is expected tomorrow.

NBC Washington- Judge Turns Down Motion to Dismiss Charges in Hot Car Death Case

The prosecution has rested its case, and the defense is presenting.

Also, along the lines of what I discussed in my post from earlier today, while I have not been in the courtroom myself, Peter Greenspun’s defense of Miles Harrison sounds less than stellar:

from ABC 7- Verdict Expected in Toddler’s Hot SUV Death

Defense attorneys argued Harrison loved his son, but was distracted by work problems that morning.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think most people manage to think through their work problems without leaving dead Russian adoptees to bake to death in hot SUVs in July… .

As Marley reported on her blog earlier,

The defense scheduled 37 witnesses to testify to Harrison’s character.

If all 37 really are to testify, getting through all of their glowing assessments of Harrison’s parenting skills may take some time.

One comment in particular, reported here on Fox/Faux news 5- Father Takes Stand in Child’s Overheating Death, struck me as incongruous:

Witnesses describe Harrison as a “joyful”, “natural” father.

While I understand the way the witness intended such, as an adoptee myself, writing about Dmitry’s death, I think it’s readily apparent that Miles Harrison was not a “natural” father, that was why the Harrisons turned to international adoption in the first place.

In any case, today Miles Harrison himself took the stand. Clearly Greenspun (his lawyer) was attempting to play up the “has/is suffering enough”/”not very together about the whole event” defense (after Harrison’s “collapse” and two weeks in a mental institution in the aftermath of Dmitry’s death.) Again from the same piece cited above:

Harrison’s lawyer asked him “Do you know why that happened?” Harrison answered “no”. “Do you know how it happened?” “No.” Then attorney Peter Greenspun asked “During the course of the day, where did you believe Chase was?”

Harrison fought back tears and whispered “daycare”.

A judge says he will rule Wednesday morning on Harrison’s guilt or innocence.

The verdict in the Miles Harrison trial has been handed down since this article was originally written. Please see my later post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry for more up to date information concerning the verdict. The article below appears as it was originally posted.

***

Перевести на русский

***

This post is an update to an ongoing series of posts I have made about the death of Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and the agency that placed him, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). EAC is one of the largest international adoption agencies in the world and the top agency in Russia (and had been in Guatemala.)

Russian law requires officials be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Dmitry is the the second Russian child EAC had placed who died apparently as a result of actions by their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham was killed by her adoptive mother in 1988. You can read my previous posts about Dmitry and EAC by clicking here (read from bottom to top, as entries are in reverse chronological order.)

***

As the Washington Post reported earlier this morning, Judge Upholds Charge Against Father of Toddler Left in Hot Car, we are awaiting a verdict in the Miles Harrison trail. The verdict will likely be handed down later today.

This morning in Virginia, Judge R. Terrence Ney refused to dismiss the case:

A Fairfax County judge this morning declined to dismiss an involuntary manslaughter charge against a man accused of leaving his toddler son in a hot vehicle for several hours, and the trial has resumed in Fairfax Circuit Court.

Miles Harrison, 49, of Purcellville is charged in the July 8 death of 21-month-old Chase Harrison. Chase was found inside his father’s GMC Yukon sport-utility vehicle in Herndon. The medical examiner said he died of heat stroke.

Harrison’s attorneys argued that the case was an accident, not manslaughter, and the charge should be thrown out. But Fairfax Circuit Court Judge R. Terrence Ney noted this morning that Harrison had placed Chase in the vehicle and stopped at a dry cleaners on the way to work, and ruled that “the Commonwealth has met her burden of showing a prima facie case for involuntary manslaughter.”

(Emphasis added)

Harrison’s high profile lawyer, Peter Greenspun (see Bastardette’s piece- SPUNNING INTO CONTROL: MILES HARRISON HIRES HIGH PROFILE DEFENSE ATTORNEY PETER D. GREENSPUN) gets my vote for worst defense argument of the month:

The standard to convict someone for involuntary manslaughter is “negligence so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life,” Greenspun said after hearing the prosecution’s case. No one testified that Harrison knew Chase was in the car or intended to leave him there, Greenspun argued.

Greenspun asked Ney to dismiss the charge at the close of the prosecution’s case. Ney turned to Fairfax Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Katherine E. Stott and asked, “Is it the commonwealth’s position that even if [Harrison] forgot [Chase], that he should have known?”

“Absolutely, your honor,” Stott said. “It is judged on an objective standard, the offender knew or should have known the results of his actions. . . . When you have a 21-month-old child in your care, you are responsible for that child’s care.”

Ney said he would study the issue and rule today.

(Emphasis added.)

THAT’S the best he can come up with? Arguing the prosecution has not proven that his client, Harrison, was aware his adopted son was in the vehicle?!?

Well please, explain how Dmitry came to be bucked into his carry-seat, magical pixies perhaps?

According to the Judge’s comment above Miles Harrison HIMSELF placed Dmitry in the vehicle!

ABC 7 (the local ABC affiliate) has pointed out the presence of a Russian Embassy representative in the courtroom:

A representative from the Russian Embassy said officials there are watching the outcome of this case carefully.

This may have had a great deal to do with why the case was not summarily dismissed, unlike so many similar cases.

The deaths of Russian Adoptees due to the actions (or inactions) of their adopters has international implications. Unfortunately, Dmitry’s death is part of a much broader pattern, see:

NIKTO NE ZABYT — NICHTO NE ZABYTO

Nobody is forgotten. Nothing is forgotten.

A memoriam for Russian adoptees abused and murdered by their forever families

Finally, I also wanted to point readers across to Marley’s Daily Bastardette piece written yesterday at the start of the Harrison trial:

CHASE HARRISON/DMITRY YAKOLEV UPDATE: MILES HARRISON STANDS TRIAL TODAY

In it, she discusses some of the new revelations from the trial:

Information, which I have not seen earlier, came out during today’s trial. Harrison, as some of us suspected, was not accustomed to taking Dmitry to daycare– a job his wife Carol, an executive with Homeland Security, usually handled.

Then this astounding revelation: on the way to work, with Dmitry in tow, Harrison remembered to drop off clothes at the dry cleaners AND he remembered to grab his backpack with his work materials from the front seat of the car, just inches away from Dmitry! But he didn’t remember Dmitry.

I will be following the case as it unfolds throughout the day.

Earlier this week, Ohio lame duck legislators in the rush to pass bills before the end of their terms passed an “aging up” dump bill expansion from Ohio’s current 72 hours to what would be a new 30 day limit.

Between both the Ohio House and Senate there was but one sole dissenting vote cast by Sen. Jeff Jacobson (R.)

The expansion bill SB 304, now sits on Governor Ted Strickland’s desk awaiting his signature.

Aging up would merely condemn yet more kids to enduring state sanctioned legalized child abandonment. It would expand and further embed legalized child dumping into the Ohio infrastructure and schools.

Other states have faced similar attempts at expansion, California for example has time and again been faced with attempts to age up that have each time been refused, (see CALIFORNIA: THE TERMINATOR TERMINATES “SAFE HAVEN” BABY DUMP EXPANSION AGAIN.)

Marley, over on the Daily Bastardette also has an incredible piece up today about the dump-law mess in Ohio and first person recounting of the reactions opponents of the legalized child abandonment bill have received:

OHIO: LAME DUCKS SELL OUT FAMILIES, EXPAND SAFE HAVENS. CONSIDER ABANDONMENT A GIFT FROM MOM! (I STRONGLY recommend readers follow the link across.)

Her piece also details the broader background of the dump law landscape in Ohio and makes it clear, some of what Ohio is counting as “safe haven” cases are likely nothing more than boarder baby cases folded in to inflate the statistics. (See my earlier piece on how New Jersey is folding boarder babies into its “safe haven” stats.)

***

Governor Strickland needs to hear from opponents of the “age up”. (Ultimately the dump laws themselves need to be repealed.) For the purposes of this bill however, contacting the Governor and urging he not enlarge the already failed legalized child abandonment program is a starting point.

He can be contacted via his webpage contact form.

Phone- General Info: (614) 466-3555

Fax- Fax: (614) 466-9354

Or snail mail-

Governor’s Office
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6108

As time is of the essence, I advise contact via e-mail and phone calls with faxes or letters as a form of follow up.

***

This is a copy of the brief note I sent through Governor Strickland’s contact page back on 12/10/08-

I am writing to urgently request you reject increasing the age limit on Ohio’s “safe haven”/legalized child abandonment law.

The legalized child abandonment expansion bill (SB 304) is a tragic expansion of an already disastrous policy.

It is bad enough that state encouragement of child abandonment has already become woven into the fabric of Ohio law and school curriculums, the expansion bill potentially increases the number of babies who will endure the lifelong effects of child abandonment.

I am an adult adoptee, born and raised in Ohio, who has spent several years researching the effects of legalized child dumping. Dump laws cause lifelong damage to kids, their families and communities.

They should be repealed, not expanded.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-Lauren Sabina Kneisly
co-author of Children of the Corn (http://cornkids.blogspot.com/)
Reporting, Theory,and Opinion on Legalized Child Dumping in Nebraska

(Please distribute freely, keeping links intact.)

Last Friday, December 5th, 2008, the SECA web-page finally went live. (http://www.stopdumpingkids.com/)

SECA, short for “Stop Encouraging Child Abandonment,” is a concept that has been a long time coming.

From the first of the legalized child abandonment laws passed in 1999 until now, efforts to repeal and stop the dump laws have suffered from a lack of an alliance dedicated to focusing primarily on the issue.

Before SECA, responses to dump laws had been piecemeal, portions of existing organizations’ broader missions. Over the years numerous organizations have opposed and testified against the legalization of child abandonment, and individuals have contacted legislators and worked against legalized child dumping. But, there had been no one place dedicated to dismantling the evolving child abandonment infrastructure.

Thus, SECA has finally been created.

Stop Encouraging Child Abandonment works toward nothing less than the full and permanent repeal of laws that legalize child abandonment.

We feel it is not the proper role of any government to encourage child abandonment as policy.

We approach this work firmly grounded in a human/civil/identity rights perspective. We support kids, women, and reproductive autonomy.

The need for SECA had become apparent over the past nine years, but the child welfare crisis in Nebraska with its law legalizing the abandonment of older children finally made it clear to the broader public, a formalized response to legalized child dumping is necessary.

Since the beginning, the consequences of such laws have been clear to those of us “in the field.” With bills rushed through state legislatures and policy and legal criticisms by and large dismissed, the general public simply never had reason to even think about the consequences of “safe haven” laws. Most people had never heard the voice of a kid who had been legally dumped. They had never seen the desperation of mothers and families utilizing the legalized abandonment laws.

Nebraska changed everything.

Nebraska’s older kid dumps, and the state’s eventual age down of eligible dumpees from 18-year olds to those 30 days and younger has solved nothing. It has merely attempted to put off dealing with the inevitable consequences “safe haven” laws create until the infants abandoned under the new law grow old enough to speak for themselves.

The child welfare abandonment disaster across the United States, legalized everywhere except Washington DC., is far from over. It is just beginning.

Out of that context, SECA was born, not so much a formal organization, for now more of a collective voice of allies, organizations, bloggers, and individuals among others working together towards the repeal of the dump laws.

If you are interested in working against the legalized child abandonment laws, or already are, SECA can serve as a resource in that work.

We can be contacted through the SECA contact page.

(Yes, I’ve taken a brief break from blogging in the aftermath of the Nebraska age down. I’m still here, still working, and yes, ‘the blogging shall continue until morale improves’.)

***

So here’s a brief post I’ve been meaning to write for some time now. Start with this November 21st article out of the Star Ledger in New Jersey, How you can put a baby in a loving home.

Sure enough, “Boarder Babies” are being folded into New Jersey’s “safe haven” stats.

(See the National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center‘s 2005 Fact Sheet on Boarder Babies, Abandoned Infants, and Discarded Infants {link opens a PDF} for some basic information on the boarder babies phenomenon and some of the ongoing issues with “safe haven”/legalized child abandonment laws.)

Keep that in mind the next time you hear some legalized child abandonment advocate bragging about their alleged number of “baby saves.” How many babies turned in under the safe haven program? ‘Oh we’ve “saved” tons!’

Just don’t look too closely, or you might realize how many of those were exactly the problem we’ve had all along, boarder babies, now just moved out of one column and into another. Which is to say the “baby savers'” stats are for shit at this point.

Lumping in the boarder babies not only vastly inflates the “safe haven” numbers of alleged baby “saves,” (a pure mis-characterization, as it’s pretty damn difficult to “save” said babies from mothers who are abandoning them after birth at the hospitals where the children were born. These were babies who never had any genuine chance to be “at risk” of anything outside hospital walls, in some cases, they were never outside a nurse’s care.) but it also sets up one hell of a conundrum.

You have state and federal programs geared towards preventing boarder baby abandonment, trying to encourage womyn to take their babies home rather than walking out the hospitals without them while SIMULTANEOUSLY creating a separate program going the exact opposite direction, wherein the state actively encourages womyn to abandon their newborns or infants.

On the one hand, you have the state putting programs and funding towards family reunification and getting the kids out of the system whenever possible, on the other you have the safe haven program working at cross purposes in most states encouraging anonymous child abandonment making family reunification an impossibility, dumping kids into the system.

Articles such as this, New program hopes to keep ‘border babies’ in arms of their parents are common. Unfortunately even within existing boarder baby programs you have programs already pulling in opposite directions. You have the mothers themselves, as but one number, 63% (link opens a PDF) of them want to keep their kids, and yes, you have programs geared towards either keeping them together or working towards reunification, but at the same time you have Child Protective Services (often encumbered by guidelines created in relation to American drug law policy) making the final determination as to whether or not the child will ultimately be discharged to go home with their parents.

Boarder baby policy(ies) is already more than enough of a conflicted mess without adding “safe haven” laws into the mix.

Boarder Babies are not only a huge drain on the entire health system, they are the ongoing “background noise” of health care itself. This has led program after program aimed at dealing with such, (and the media) to label the ever mounting numbers of abandoned at hospitals post birth and after the mother’s discharge an all out “boarder baby crisis.”

Let’s be clear here. The alleged raison d’etre for the legalized abandonment/”safe haven” schemes was to “save” babies who were supposedly at risk of immediate harm. A boarder baby born in a hospital, and either abandoned by its parents or forced to be left behind by a child protective services determination is NOT and NEVER WAS in any danger. It was born in a hospital and in most cases has been in hospital care its entire life up to that point. To lump boarder babies into baby-dump/”safe haven” stats is not merely disingenuous, a BLATANT fabrication.

Unless of course, the whole point was always to increase the supply of adoptable history free infants, permanently separated from their parents of origin.

Seeing as to how the legalized abandonment laws were the (sick) spawn of the National Council for Adoption (NCFA), and the primary organization pushing for the dump laws, the National Safe Haven Alliance grew out of the NCFA, I’ll leave it to readers to make up their own minds about said motivations.

More recently of course you have the federal adoption ‘bonuses’ to states that move children from the public system into “permanent homes.” Children who are abandoned are automatically categorized as “special needs” and states placing “special needs” kids get even larger adoption bonuses.

When you hear the term “safe haven” keep in mind that much of what we’re really talking about here is fast tracked, so called “non-bureaucratic placements,” i.e. adoptions whenever possible.

While the preferred mythology of the “safe haven” babies is that of the alleged young and desperate (preferably white) teenage mother with nowhere else to turn, “safe havening” her (preferably equally white, or at least passable) newborn only to be adopted as soon as possible after relinquishment with (yet another preferably white, preferably heterosexual) loving couple out in the ‘burbs with a white picket fence and a dog, add the reality of boarder babies into the mix and clearly there’s more to to all this than first meets the eye.

When boarder babies are lumped under those same words, adopters may find themselves with a kid going through weeks of withdrawal or even lifelong effects after drug additions, lifelong effects that even experts can’t predict, or they may be receiving an HIV+ child. Due to the lack of prenatal care and the facets of their mother’s lives (poverty, inadequate food in the household, mental illness, addiction, etc) the adopters’ newly acquired little bundle of joy may turn out to be quite a bit more than they bargained on.

Under normal conditions, boarder babies are some of the least desirable kids in the adoption food chain, for many of the reasons I listed above. That said though, via re-branding, boarder babies can now go up for adoption as “saved” “safe haven” babies, suddenly now a desirable commodity to some.

This is tremendously beneficial to the state, as without the re-branding, boarder babies tend to languish in hospital care for months, only to eventually be bounced around the foster care system, they’re the kids nobody wants.

Take this older story out of the New York Times, BOARDER BABIES FIND COMFORT IN FOSTER GRANDPARENTS’ ARMS, in which the low income elderly are being recruited to deal with the them:

Besides providing a support system for the babies, the foster grandparents’ program tends to counter stereotypes of older people, said Marcia Vogel, the director. ”It shows how useful they can be,…

“Safe Haven” babies come “as is.” Most states actively make no point of collecting medical information or histories on the kids. The less known about them, the more marketable they are.

So it’s “buyer beware” for the adopters who clamour to get a hold of the little media friendly “saved babies.”

But that lifelong question mark of lack of information while a downside for the kids, is an upside for the state and its marketing. Phone lines buzz with desperate infertile couples trying to get a hold of “Safe Havened” babies after news reports.

So, how many other states are padding out their numbers of “safe haven saved babies” with boarder babies?

Perhaps more importantly, how many states are ‘solving’ their boarder baby problem by sliding them over a column?

I can just hear it now:

‘Wow! New Jersey, fewer boarder babies? That’s great! How’d you manage that?’