Home  

Painful affairs of child adoption in Nepal

Anil Giri – AHN News Correspondent
Feature Story, Nepal (AHN) – Last September, American couple Haydn Hilling and his wife Edvige desperately wanted to take home their adopted Nepali child, Kailash. Though the American couple that hails from Louisiana spent more than one-and-a-half years getting the necessary paperwork required for the adoption, the process has come to a standstill following the United States’ decision to halt adoptions of abandoned children from Nepal.
The U.S. administration halted the adoption of Nepali children due to growing allegations of child trafficking and falsification of documents, often in connivance with government authorities.
A joint statement issued by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the first week of August said the step was taken to protect the rights and interests of Nepali children and their families after field visits to orphanages and police departments showed that documents describing children up for adoption as abandoned were often unreliable.
Another 10 countries–Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom–have also halted inter-country adoptions from Nepal.
According to Nepal’s Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare, new rules were put in place last December and some stern measures have been added to the process.
“The Hague Secretariat also wants the smooth resumption of child adoption here,” chief of the ministry’s legal section, Sher Jung Karki said. The new set of policies allows local placement agencies to charge US$5,000 to adopting parents, while the government charges US$3,000.
Any foreign placement agency must set up a liaison office in Nepal and pay the government US$10,000 that will be handed over to an organization working for the welfare of children. Subsequently, the process of inter-country adoption of street children is subject to widespread abuses, the government has banned the adoption effective from Jan. 5.
The new policy also allows Nobel laureates, heads of states/governments, foreign ministers, celebrities, or a couple with an annual income of over US$300,000 to become foster parents, while others cannot.
Largely, a vulnerable adoption process that had been taking place in Nepal since several years has compelled the US government more alerted and posed a ban. That was the reason that they could not adopted two – year – old Kailash which made them running from pillar to post that their call will be heard.
Now the list is long. As many as 56 American families are facing heartbreak due to the US Government decision to ban child adoption from Nepal until Nepal’s legal provision ensures that adopted children were not fraud and claim genuine.
These desperate 56 parents have instituted an alliance and had registered a petition in US Congress. “We respectfully request that the Right Honorable members of the US Senate and House petition the Department of State and USCIS within the Department of Homeland Security to assist the “Nepal Pipeline families” in obtaining visas to bring their children home immediately,” the petition reads.
In response to the petition, 14,398 letters and emails were sent far to support their campaign. Moreover they have internet campaign through blog, http://theywaitnepal.blogspot.com/. One can find the photos of to be adopted Nepali child and their US mother. “These families are struggling to bring home their legally adopted children who are stuck in Nepal awaiting visas that will allow them to enter the US,” they write in their blog.
Many anxious parents are waiting in the US also. Many are stranded since August, 2010.
It seems that child adoption in Nepal has been turned into a profitable business as dozens of websites and privately organizations have claimed that there were many advantages of adopting children from Nepal. “There are many advantages for adopting from Nepal. Even though Nepal is an economically poor country, children are cared for very well with few incidences of abuse or neglect. If you like the idea of adopting a baby or toddler, it would be an excellent country to consider,” claims, adoptionark.
Article © AHN – All Rights Reserved
Adoption Ark
Nepal, United States of America

Abolish orphanages – NGO urges government

Abolish orphanages – NGO urges government


Last Updated: Friday, 28 January 2011, 17:33


Orphanaid Africa, a non-government organization (NGO) that sponsors families to care for orphans instead of taking them to orphanages, is calling on government to abolish orphanages in Ghana.

Awo Boatemaa Aboagye-Dankwa is the Head of Family Support Services at Orphanaid and she tells Asempa News orphanages are foreign to Ghanaian culture and even the West have abolished them because they have proven to be ineffective, so there is no reason for Ghana to keep orphanages.

This call comes in the wake of grave abuses and crimes against children in three orphanages in Ghana within the space of about a year.

Peace and Love Orphanage was rocked by child to child abuse due to adult negligence; massive and chilling child abuses by caregivers at Osu Children’s Home were caught on tape a few months back, and the latest is child trafficking at Hohoe Christian Orphanage.

Awo Aboagye-Dankwa said it is time Ghana looks for alternatives to orphanages because they are not helping.

“Besides the evidence of abuse and criminal activities in orphanages, they also detach children from society and make them lose their self confidence when they become adults,” she said.

She pointed out that research carried out by the Department of Social Welfare in 2009 indicated that up to 90 per cent of children in orphanage are not real orphans but rather children of poor parents who cannot afford to pay for the education of their ward.

Awo Aboagye-Dankwa said Orphanaid Africa has made proposals to government on alternative ways of providing orphans with proper and holistic care and upbringing in a way that will not detach them from their families and communities.

“Instead of orphanages, government can create foster homes, children residential homes, temporary placements and transit points for orphans to be restored to their extended families or to foster families like Orphanaid has been doing over the past three years,” she said.

Awo said so far Orphanaid had resettled 23 real orphans into their original communities and are working with a total of 48 families to provide support for more orphans all the way to the university level.

She said Orphanaid works with the families to provide a care plan for each child, adding “we provide all the funding for their education, health insurance and care, accommodation for parents and child and sometimes we pay families to care for the children.”

Asempa News also managed to reach Miss Comfort Obeng, a Coordinator at Orphanaid’s foster home and she said, unlike in orphanages, the families live with the children like their own and in separate apartments.

She therefore urged government to consider adopting the Orphanaid example on a large scale.


Story by: Samuel Nii Narku Dowuona/Asempa News/Ghana

Ghana

Child frustrates professional parents

Child frustrates professional parents

Therapist, physician husband thought they could raise a troubled girl. They couldn't

Monday, August 14, 2000

By Cindi Lash, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

 

In her first meeting with the 4-year-old Russian orphan who was to become her adopted daughter, Anna sensed trouble.

But as a family therapist for nearly a decade, Anna knew about assessing and treating disorders, syndromes and psychological problems. She and her physician husband believed they cou ld cope with the physical and mental ailments that can affect previously institutionalized children.

They were wrong. Fifteen months after Anna and her husband decided to adopt the blue-eyed girl with blond ringlets and a double-dimple smile, they gave her away.

"We were professionals and we thought we'd know how to help her," Anna said. "But she really did things you wouldn't think of [from a child so young]. I don't think a child like this can live in society."

Anna, 45, and her husband are among a small but growing number of parents who have opted to disrupt -- or dissolve -- adoptions because they could not provide the level of care their adopted Russian-born children required.

Experiences like theirs prompted the Russian government earlier this year to suspend international adoptions while it overhauls its adoption system. Anna, who lives with her husband and a 12-year-old daughter in an affluent Western Pennsylvania neighborhood, told her family's story on condition that her last name and details about her family be withheld.

In addition to doing research, Anna talked with other families that had adopted from Russia before choosing to work with Adopt-A-Child, an agency in Squirrel Hill. With her husband and their then-10-year-old daughter, they flew to Russia in July 1998 to formalize the adoption.

Unlike other children in the orphanage, the 4-year-old girl had no apparent physical problems. She was "big and blooming," and exhibited none of the fearful, retiring mannerisms displayed by other developmentally delayed children there.

Anna said her diagnostic antenna went up quickly as she observed how the girl fawned over her husband. To her, that suggested reactive attachment disorder, which often affects children raised in institutions without individual attention or care.

Those children develop without learning to form attachments and, as a result, are often indiscriminately affectionate with strangers.

The girl also balked at doing what others wanted her to do. To Anna, that suggested oppositional defiant disorder -- another syndrome common in children who've been abused and institutionalized and are used to looking out for themselves. The presence of a venereal wart on her tongue was a sign of past sexual abuse.

"From day one, [I suspected] trouble," Anna said. "I had an idea and I should have listened to it, but I thought I knew what oppositional defiant [disorder] was and how to approach it. We so wanted to make this work."

At home, the family's struggles began and intensified. Every morning meant a battle to bathe, dress and feed the girl while she screamed, kicked, clawed and bit.

Despite the efforts of Anna's older daughter to win the girl over, the girl smacked and hit the older sister, then began sidling up and whispering, "I hate you. I'm going to kill you."

At night, the adopted girl delighted in poking her fingers into her mother's windpipe while they read bedtime stories. She choked her dolls, tormented the dog and acted out sexually.

Anna and her husband knew the girl's behavior resulted from having spent most of her life in an orphanage, and they sought to counteract the effects of institutionalization.

The family began treatment with a therapist in Shadyside who'd been recommended as an expert in treating children with attachment disorders. That therapist has since left the region.

The girl was diagnosed as having up to 12 disorders, including reactive attachment, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder and multiple learning disabilities.

The therapist prescribed exercises aimed at helping the girl learn and establish bonds with her family. The therapist also advised confining their older daughter to the second floor of their home until the younger girl felt less jealous of her and her place in the family.

Anna quit working, stopped studying for her doctorate and acquired a library's worth of books and videotapes dealing with the younger girl's disorders. Their older daughter huddled in her room or fled the house to visit friends.

One day in the park, the girl saw a woman cuddling an infant on her lap. Anna was touched to see the girl's face wrenched with longing for the kind of mother's love that she had been denied as a baby.

But in May 1999, the younger girl erupted at the sight of the older girl on the first floor. Grabbing a pole used to open a skylight, the girl beat her older sister bloody and nearly unconscious before Anna heard screams and pulled them apart.

"Who would believe a 5 1/2--year-old girl could do this?" Anna said. "I grieved that whole month of May, when I could see she was really going down the tubes. I felt at times like I'd built a bond with her. But the day she beat my older daughter, I felt I couldn't take care of her anymore."

The family installed a security system to make sure the girl didn't attack them while they slept behind locked doors. Afraid for their older daughter's safety, they sent her to relatives in Boston when school ended.

One day at summer camp, Anna found the girl holding a child's head underwater in a stream because that child had supposedly taken her milk carton.

"The other girl's mother came running and she looked at me like I had a monster," Anna said. "I knew that, but I didn't make the monster."

Desperate for help, Anna and her husband contacted Dr. Ronald S. Federici, an Alexandria, Va., developmental neuropsychologist who is internationally known for his work with once-institutionalized children. Anna said Federici assessed the girl later that summer, then bluntly told her and her husband that the girl would try to kill their older daughter if she came home.

Federici suggested that Anna and her husband try methods he's detailed in his book "Help for the Hopeless Child." His intervention plan calls for families and their adopted children to remain together in their home for weeks or months, shunning outside stimulation until the child becomes part of the family circle.

Federici's program also includes therapeutic holding, in which parents immobilize their rebellious, violent child on the floor until the child stops resisting them. While the therapy can appear to be abusive to the untrained, Federici and his supporters say it has been successful with many children.

Anna said Federici offered no guarantees about how much the girl's behavior could be modified. Still, she and her husband decided to try, at least for a few weeks.

Not long after they went home, Anna said, the girl asked her for a hug before bedtime, then choked and nearly strangled her during the embrace. As Anna coughed and gasped after breaking free, the girl grinned and asked in a falsely sweet voice: "I'm not trying to kill you, am I, Mommy?"

Anna walked downstairs, dialed Federici and said, "Find another place for her."

Federici referred them to a couple in another state who work with severely disturbed, formerly institutionalized children. They were interested in taking in and perhaps adopting such a child.

In October, Anna and her husband told the girl they loved her but believed that she'd be better off with another family that better understood how to help her.

"OK, cool," the girl responded. "Is my new mommy a good cook?"

During the 15 months that the girl was with her family, Anna said, she contacted Adopt-A-Child repeatedly for advice about how to handle her. She said agency workers initially told her, "It'll get better," and offered few suggestions about modifying the girl's behavior.

She said she felt the agency offered no alternatives for finding a new placement for the girl, telling her, "She's your child."

Adopt-A-Child Clinical Director Laura Ellman said Anna and her husband met with agency officials twice in the fall of 1998 and again in May 1999. Agency workers also had several telephone conversations with them.

Ellman declined to discuss the specifics of what was said in those talks. But she said the family's comments about the girl were positive for nearly a year.

Ellman said Anna and her husband did not express concerns about the girl's behavior to Adopt-A-Child until their third meeting, May 1, 1999. Ellman said agency workers referred the family to professionals who, they believed, could help the girl.

"The end of the report [from that meeting] says Anna was very, very pleased to have [the girl] as part of their family," Ellman said.

Around that time, however, the family concluded that the girl was "deteriorating," Ellman said. The family telephoned the agency six times between June 4 and Sept. 15, Ellman said, and the agency provided additional referrals and suggestions about addressing the girl's behavior.

At the family's last meeting with agency workers Aug. 5, 1999, Ellman said, the family again raised questions about the girl's behavior. But she said they also completed a questionnaire on which they wrote that they had discussed their concerns and believed they were "on the right track."

"It appears that things deteriorated quickly after that from the parents' perspective," and the family broached the idea of disrupting the adoption, Ellman said.

Adopt-A-Child recommended agencies and physicians who could advise the family on disruption. In September, Ellman said, Adopt-a-Child was contacted by the family's attorney, who said the family had found an option and wished no further contact with the agency.

"We've placed more than 600 Russian children since we began [in 1992] and we have hundreds of people who can attest to happy outcomes," said Ellman, who added that Anna's case was one of two adoptions arranged by the agency that later were dissolved.

"I feel professionally very responsible about what went on with that family. Adopt-A-Child was as involved with them as they agreed to let us be," she said. "We certainly cannot guarantee the happiness of our folks, but we certainly try to support them through the process."

Today, the girl's new family is preparing to adopt her. Anna and her husband are paying the legal bills for that process and have taken out a home-equity loan to cover those costs, as well as nearly $100,000 in medical and other bills.

Although the girl has been gone for nearly a year, her photographs still hang on the walls and her Winnie-the-Pooh-trimmed bedroom sits intact. Her things won't be packed away until her next adoption is final.

"After she left, my husband and I couldn't talk, we were so sad," Anna said. "Now I'm starting to feel like I had a terminal illness and the family that took her gave me my life back. Those people are saints, and I can't bless them enough for helping us, and for helping her."

 

 

Russia, United States of America
Adopt-A-Child Inc

Russian Situation

RUSSIAN SITUATION


UPDATED January 28, 2011


According to our sources, further talks on the Russo-American adoption agreement may not resume until the spring.

Until then, however, adoptions (agency and independent) are proceeding, but with some delays. 

Adoptions HAVE NOT BEEN HALTED.

(c) 2010 Russian and Ukrainian Private Adoption Project


Russia
Ronald Federici

*Angelina Jolie si Brad Pitt isi doresc sa adopte un copil din Romania.

Jan.17, 2011 in Ultimele
Barfe<http://www.vedete-monden.com/category/ultimele-barfe/>

*Angelina Jolie si Brad Pitt isi doresc sa adopte un copil din Romania.
*

Potrivit ziarului Libertatea, cei doi, care au decis de curand sa-si
mareasca familia cu inca un membru, au luat calcul infierea unui copil
roman, dupa ce au discutat cu doctorul Ronald Federici, consilierul personal
in materie de adoptii al Angelinei Jolie.

 Ronald Federici este totodata si presedintele Organizatiei “Care for
children international”. Federici a aratat un interes deosebit fata de
copiii orfani din Europa de Est, in special cei din tara noastra, el reusind
sa realizeze peste 1.000 de adoptii din aceasta parte a continentului. De
altfel, Federici insusi a infiat doi copii din Romania.

Demersul cuplului Angelina Jolie-Brad Pitt este deocamdata blocat de actuala
legislatie romaneasca referitoare la regimul adoptiilor. Astfel, de la 1
ianuarie 2005 a intrat in vigoare o lege care restrictioneaza adoptiile
internationale.

Angelina Jolie si Brad Pitt au sase copii: trei adoptati si trei biologici (
*Shiloh Nouvel *si gemenii *Knox Leon*si *Vivienne Marcheline*). Angelina
Jolie a adoptat primul copil, pe *Maddox*, din Cambodgia, in martie 2002.
Apoi, vedeta a mai infiat-o pe *Zahara Marley*, din Etiopia, in 2005. Doi
ani mai tarziu, actrita l-a adoptat pe *Pax Thien*, un baietel din
Thailanda.
Romania
Ronald Federici, Angelina Jolie

Dr. Ronald Federici: Humanitarian Efforts in Romania

Dr. Ronald Federici: Humanitarian Efforts in Romania

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 05:26
Dr. Ronald Federici has 20 years of experience completing complex neuropsychiatric evaluations with children having significant neurodevelopmental and emotional difficulties. He is a professional consultant to numerous schools, mental health clinics, pediatric and adolescent medicine clinics, court service units and adoption groups, and is frequently called upon to perform “second opinions” for the most difficult to diagnose cases. Dr. Ronald Federici also works extensively in forensic neuropsychology and has served as an expert witness in cases involving the assessment and rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury or other neurological disorders. Dr. Ronald Federici lectures nationally and internationally on matters pertaining to developmental neuropsychology and severe neuropsychiatric disorders of children, particularly children from post-institutionalized settings. He is regarded as the country’s expert in neuropsychiatric evaluations of internationally adopted children, particularly children from Eastern Europe. He has a special interest in Romanian and Russian orphans, and has evaluated well over a thousand Eastern European adoptees and those still residing in their respective countries. Dr. Ronald Federici has appeared on numerous national television and radio shows such as 20/20, Turning Point, Night Line, Good Morning America, British Broadcasting Corporation, as well as publishing in magazines and newspapers around the world regarding the institutional crises in various countries, particularly Eastern Europe. Dr. Ronald Federici has published various articles in addition to his book entitled “Help for the Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families (With Special Discussion for Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child)”. He has developed the concepts of “Institutional Autism: An Acquired Syndrome” in addition to researching extensively the “Neuropsychology of Bonding and Attachment Disorders”. His second book entitled “Escape From Despair: Through the Eyes of the Child” is in press. Dr. Ronald Federici serves as President of the Care for Children International, Inc. which is a Humanitarian Aid Organization providing medical care, supplies, training and education to the Romanian Department of Child Protective Services. Dr. Ronald Federici holds an honorary position as Chief Medical Consultant regarding institutionalized children in Romania. He is held in the highest regard with the Romanian government and the Romanian Ambassador to the U.S. Dr. Ronald Federici’s humanitarian organization has worked for many years throughout Romanian institutions and has provided comprehensive medical and neuropsychiatric care in addition to being one of the leading groups in de-institutionalizing children. He is personally responsible for building multiple group homes, independent living situations and leading multiple medical missions and providing millions of dollars of urgently needed medical care, medication, supplies, food and training to address the child welfare/institutional crisis which has plagued Romania for a decade. Currently, Dr. Ronald Federici is working with several international humanitarian groups in providing a proposal for comprehensive-country wide change of the Romanian institutional system. Dr. Ronald Federici and his group of well over 30 committed medical specialists from all disciplines are frequently called upon by numerous institutions and governmental offices throughout Romania to consult and assist counties and governmental departments with the ultimate goal being the development of new programs aimed at de-institutionalization and stabilization of the Romanian social system, family and regional/county economic distribution of funds for institutionalized children. Dr. Ronald Federici has been involved in extensive lobbying efforts on Capital Hill to improve the policies and procedures for international adoptions, and also offered expert professional testimony on October 5, 1999 to Senator Jesse Helms and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the problems in international adoptions and issues with the Hague Treaty. Additionally, Dr. Ronald Federici has lobbied extensively to preserve the integrity and responsibility of USAID spending in Romania, and has provided multiple reports to USAID, Washington regarding Romanian child welfare reform, programs, funding and opinions regarding distribution of foreign aid. Dr. Ronald Federici continues to work aggressively to secure private funding and USAID funding for Romanian-specific child welfare reform programs and has completed an extensive “proposal” which is aimed at country-wide institutional reform.
Ronald Federici

Noted Therapist of Internationally AdoptionChildren Sues Critics

December 06, 2010

Noted Therapist of Internationally AdoptionChildren Sues Critics

Psychologist Ronald Federici of Virginia, a well-known therapist of internationally adopted children, is suing another noted psychologist, Dr. Jean Mercer, for a column she wrote about one of his cases in Psychology Today.

Federici designed a treatment plan for an adoptive family of a 13-year-old Russian adoptee that involved withholding food from the boy and confining him to his room for weeks. The boy ended up starving and hospitalized. The parents went to jail for felony child abuse. And Dr. Federici? Dr. Mercer wrote about the case for a national magazine in a piece titled "The Hungry Boy" which must have embarrassed him, so he's fighting back. You can read about the lawsuit and the family's plight on Dr. Mercer's blog. 

Thanks to Jessica of O Solo Mama for highlighting this story.

Parents, please be cautious when choosing a therapist for your child. As Dr. Mercer has previously pointed out, there's a lot of questionable and dangerous advice out there.

 

Ronald Federici

US embassy cables: First ladies of India and California get on wonderfully – up to a point

US embassy cables: First ladies of India and California get on wonderfully – up to a point
·         
Friday, 04 August 2006, 13:17
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 NEW DELHI 005495 
SIPDIS 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR INR/B 
EO 12958 DECL: 08/04/2016 
TAGS PGOV, PREL, PINR, PHUM, SCUL, KWMN, PINS, IN 
SUBJECT: A GARRULOUS SONIA GANDHI OPENS UP TO MARIA SHRIVER 
Classified By: Charge Geoff Pyatt for reasons 1.4 (B,D)
Summary
  1. Maria Shriver, wife of the governor of California and Sonia Gandhi, the most powerful person in India and the head of the ruling Congress party, have a one hour meeting to talk about "women's issues." For her visitors, Mrs Gandhi is warm, even effusive, admirable, informed far from her normal reserved self, her "italian" nature showing through. Reading between the lines reveals however that the warmth may not have been mutual. Key passages highlighted in yellow.
1. (C) Summary: In a relaxed August 3 conversation with California first lady Maria Shriver, Sonia Gandhi revealed a rare glimpse of herself. Usually withdrawn and reserved in public, she spoke at great length and radiated confidence on women's' issues and some aspects of her private life. Mrs. Gandhi demonstrated a strong commitment to a progressive left-of-center agenda aimed at combating socially conservative forces bent on oppressing Indian women. However, she was also realistic, revealing an in-depth knowledge of Indian culture, especially the rural/urban divide. At times suppressing her emotions, she spoke about the compulsions of political life, her parents' objections to her marriage to Rajiv Gandhiand the sacrifices she and her family have made. Her comments and demeanor put the lie to cocktail party suggestions that she courts Manmohan Singh's job. End Summary.
Two Dynasties Meet
------------------
2. (C) Maria Shriver, California's first lady and wife of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, met with Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi on August 3 as part of her official visit toIndia. Shriver is in India to discuss her various initiatives on women's' affairs and to solicit Indian involvement. She is also laying the groundwork for a proposed trade mission led by Governor Schwarzenegger around February, 2007. After her stay in Delhi, she will go to Dharamshalla to meet the Dalai Lama. In addition to the Gandhi meeting, Shriver met with the head of the National Commission for Women and toured NGO's involved in women's' affairs. Mrs. Gandhi was accompanied by former Cabinet Minister Karan Singh.
Indian Women Bear a Heavy Burden
--------------------------------
3. (C) Shriver and Gandhi engaged in an over one hour exchange that was lively and open and covered many issues, both personal and political. Shriver explained that she was concerned with women's issues, including sexual abuse and exploitation and trafficking. Mrs. Gandhi replied that the situation for women in India is more troubling and traumatic than that in the US and other developed countries, as Indian women must deal with myriad problems not found in the west, such as child labor. In addition, most Indian women live in remote villages with severe "cultural compulsions" that work against women, making it difficult for the GOI to enforce the law. She pointed out that Indian women remain largely uneducated which is a "big problem" for Indian society and makes progress difficult. This compels the GOI to rely on television and radio to reach women with messages aimed at their concerns. Mrs. Gandhi noted that while she had a deep personal interest in women's' issues, she "only rarely" gave personal interviews aimed at female audiences.
And Sonia Bears a Personal Burden
---------------------------------
4. (C) Without prompting and at her own initiative Mrs. Gandhi then spoke at length about her personal life. She revealed that after her mother in law's murder Rajiv Gandhiwas under intense pressure to take up the political mantle of the Gandhi family, but both Rajiv and Sonia were intensely
NEW DELHI 00005495 002 OF 005
personal and had no interest in politics. According to Mrs. Gandhi, she urged her husband repeatedly to avoid politics, but he insisted. After Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, Sonia was determined to avoid the limelight and "kept in the background." She clarified that she accompanied her husband to official events, but refrained from making political statements. After her husband's assassination, Mrs. Gandhiwithdrew, working only on a charitable foundation established in Rajiv's memory. In a candid revelation of her personal political stance, Mrs. Gandhi stated that "the right was becoming strong in India and Congress weak," tipping her hand and "compelling" her to enter politics to protect the Gandhi family legacy. She also revealed that her children were "not keen" about the idea, but eventually told her, "whatever you decide, we will back you."
Turning Down the PM Spot
------------------------
5. (C) Mrs. Gandhi was reluctant to provide details regarding her decision to turn down the Prime Minister post after the UPA's surprise 2004 electoral victory, stating that "I am often asked about this, but tell people that I will write a book someday with the whole story." She would only say that she "felt better" that someone else became PM and "did not regret" her decision. Shriver congratulated Mrs. Gandhi for her resoluteness and described her as "courageous." Clearly embarrassed by this adulation, Mrs. Gandhi made no response. She elaborated, at Karan Singh's insistence, saying that she was under lots of pressure, as the "party workers" were "very upset." They "could not understand" why she, as party President, was not taking up the post, since they had voted for her and won a majority.
Politics and Women
------------------
6. (C) Shriver noted that she chairs a "Women's Conference" that brings 11,000 women to California to discuss relevant issues, and reinforced the point that "women can change the world." Shriver invited Mrs. Gandhi to attend next year. She pointed out that last year's keynote speaker was Sandra Day O'Connor, who spoke about balancing public and private life, and how she left the Supreme Court to look after her ailing husband and spend more time with her children. Shriver emphasized that Justice O'Connor also did not want to enter public life but was "pushed by her husband," and noted how difficult it is to be a wife and mother and play a public role. Mrs. Gandhi made no commitment to attend.
Indian Steps to Bring Justice
-----------------------------
7. (C) Mrs. Gandhi explained the steps that her UPA government had taken and planned to take to help women achieve greater social mobility and rights. She explained that the GOI had instituted a "Panchayati Raj" program under which major decisions regarding the economic development of villages are made by Panchayats (village councils). To ensure female participation, Rajiv Gandhi had "reserved" 33 percent of the positions on the Panchayats for women. Although there were "some complaints" that the women were "manipulated by their husbands," Mrs. Gandhi asserted that "research had confirmed that women will invariably take the right decisions." She noted that the UPA now wants to extend the same reservations to Parliament and the Legislative
NEW DELHI 00005495 003 OF 005
Assemblies. Mrs. Gandhi confirmed that currently the number of female MPs was "very small," as "some parties believe that women should not be in power."
The Indian Contradiction
------------------------
8. (C) Shriver pointed out that her trip had made her aware of the "great contradiction" between a society in which women occupied many leadership positions, including, at times, Prime Minister," but still were denied many basic rights. Mrs. Gandhi agreed with Shriver, noting that several Indian states had female Chief Ministers, and that an increasing numbers of Indian women are CEOs of major corporations, doctors, and scientists, and "we will keep fighting." She explained that the situation for women varied from state to state, and that South India was "more progressive" than the North for various historical and cultural reasons, and that, for example, the state of Kerala supplied nurses to much of the Middle East.
Possible Indian Collaboration
-----------------------------
9. (C) Praising the contribution of Indians and Indian-Americans to California, Shriver suggested that perhaps the GOI could help the state government combat its teacher and nursing shortage. She also noted that her family is very involved in the Special Olympics program and would like 500,000 participants for the Indian Special Olympics and hoped that Mrs.Gandhi would attend the events scheduled for November 6. Mrs. Shriver pointed out that those with intellectual disabilities were making great strides in the US, with many becoming self sufficient. This is necessary, she pointed out, "as we do not have the relevant institutions in the US." Mrs. Gandhi conceded that Indian government institutions for the intellectually disabled are "nothing to write home about," leaving parents and NGOs to deal with the problem, and that in rural areas, such children are "often hidden" and their disability "kept secret."
Slow Social Change
------------------
10. (C) Mrs. Gandhi was not the least defensive about the gravity of India's social problems. When asked by Shriver about adoption, she noted that adoptions remained rare in India and most Indians continued to "see nothing wrong" in that. It is a "happy change," however, that more families are taking in orphans. She readily agreed with Shriver that many Indians still considered female children as "a problem" and preferred males and, as a result, more girls are abandoned than boys. Mrs. Gandhi reiterated that "education is the key to change" as much legislation is not enforced. This makes it necessary to "convince families and make them understand" to bring about positive change.
Personal Insights Into an Active Life
-------------------------------------
11. (C) Mrs. Gandhi then provided personal insights into her life, saying that she travels constantly all over India, often to remote areas to visit the common people, as "it is only by going out and interacting with people that we are in a better position to understand their problems and determine what they want." She confided that there has been a big
NEW DELHI 00005495 004 OF 005
change in the Indian mindset regarding education. Earlier, parents were not very interested in ensuring their children were educated, while today, "99 percent want to send their children to school." Everywhere you go in India today, she noted, you see children in their uniforms heading for school, and this is "something that makes us happy." In addition to education, Indian parents want their children to have access to basic health care - "doctors and medicines," and some assurance that they will have a job after they complete their education. Mrs.Gandhi worried that there will be huge numbers of young Indians leaving school with no guarantee of finding a job.
Population Control Off the Screen
---------------------------------
12. (C) Mrs. Gandhi pointed out that "population control" is a political taboo in India after Indira Gandhi was voted out of office over this issue. Although she insisted allegations of forced vasectomies and other abuses were "highly exaggerated" and "politically motivated," the historical memory has forced the UPA to focus on raising awareness and providing basic health services and means that progress on reducing the birth rate will be "slow." Again, education will be the key, as demonstrated by the small family norm in urban areas.
Culture and Fighting AIDS
-------------------------
13. (C) Karan Singh pointed out that population reduction and AIDS control are linked as it requires condom distribution to combat both problems. Mrs. Gandhi pointed out that Northeast India faces a severe AIDS problem, as it is a transshipment point for narcotics with a growing drug problem. Cultural factors also inhibit AIDS control, as the government "cannot be open" with condom distribution because of "certain mindsets." This compels the GOI to find an "appropriate way" to communicate with the population. Shriver responded that the US, as a multicultural society, faces many of the same problems, as men from some cultural backgrounds "don't want anything to do" with family planning and AIDS prevention. The key, she emphasized, was "empowering women to demand action on these issues."
India and the US
----------------
14. (C) Shriver observed that there was "no anti-Americanism" in India and that Indians from diverse backgrounds, cultures and religions have successfully found ways to coexist. Mrs. Gandhi replied that Indians are "inherently tolerant" as they have co-existed for centuries. Karan Singh added that the "freedom movement of Mahatma Gandhi" also played a crucial role as it was inclusive, pluralistic and emphasized that multiplicity of Indian culture. Mrs. Gandhi jokingly pointed out that the "Indian Left is anti-American," but then agreed that its stance was aimed at "American policy" rather than the American people. Karan Singh emphasized that he and "most Indians" objected to many aspects of current American policy but held no brief against the American people. Mrs. Gandhi also pointed out that many Indian Muslims "resent certain policies of the US."
More Personal Revelations
NEW DELHI 00005495 005 OF 005
-------------------------
15. (C) Mrs. Gandhi revealed that her own parents objected to her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi and she "resented their position" and went ahead and married him anyway. She also noted that she felt that her gender has never been an issue in her political life and that Indira Gandhi also made the same observation. In Hinduism, "women are seen as goddesses and no puja (worship) can take place without them," while, ironically, oppression of women is common. She also revealed that common women in India's rural areas do not hold her in great awe and don't think of her as a great personality, as "their priorities are so different."
Comment: A Relaxed Gandhi Provides A Rare Personal Insight
--------------------------------------------- -------------
16. (C) Sonia Gandhi is often stiff and detached when in public. This was a more relaxed Sonia, possibly because she felt a personal rapport with Maria Shriver. In this more relaxed setting, Sonia Gandhi revealed a left of center political orientation which stresses the strong role of the government in ensuring social progress and her inherent opposition to the social conservatism of the Hindu right. At the same time, she entertained no illusions that she or the UPA will bring about rapid social change or uplift quickly India's oppressed women. Instead, she embraced an evolutionary and patient approach based on a broad knowledge of Indian culture and traditions. She was, for example, acutely aware of the vast divide between rural and urban India and the inherent difficulty of pushing entrenched villagers into the 21st century. Deeply hurt by personal tragedy, she has erected a strong and stoic persona to prevent public access to her personal space. Whenever she spoke of the deaths of her husband and mother-in-law, she struggled to keep her emotions in check. Despite her carefully erected Indian persona, her basic Italian personality is clearly evident in her mannerisms, speech and interests. She presents an intriguing enigma of a warm private personality that remains concealed and is available only to her closest confidants and family members.
17. (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website: (http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/sa/newdelhi/) PYATT
Wikileaks
United States of America, India

Hundreds of Spanish babies 'stolen from clinics and sold for adoption'

Spain

The long road home

The long road home
Abandoned in a Romanian orphanage, Florin now lives with his adoptive mother, Clara.
While helping place Romanian orphans in foster homes, American researchers are learning valuable lessons about what impact deprivation has on the brain—and whether its effects can be reversed.
Florin lives with his adoptive family in a Bucharest apartment building where trellised grape vines arch the front path and white lace curtains filter the morning sun. A portfolio of his drawings sits by his bed; the aroma of fresh coffee fills the hall.
Lazing in PJs, this dark-haired, almond-eyed 6-year-old rests a cheek on his mother's shoulder as he watches cartoons. He wants to create them one day. "I will make my drawings more beautiful and more beautiful," he says, "and the best ones will be shown on TV." He is confident his teacher will find the best station to broadcast his pictures.
The ordinariness of Florin's life couldn't have been imagined based on where he started. Abandoned at birth in a maternity ward, he spent his first 11 months in one of Romania's infamous orphanages. Babies weren't held when crying, fed when hungry or changed when wet. Rarely did someone hum a lullaby to quiet the infants to sleep or delight them with peek-a-boo. They were left lying on their backs in cribs for hours, staring up at bare white ceilings.
Photographer Michael Carroll first visited Romania in the days after Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in 1989. His intention was to chronicle the country's AIDS crisis, but he became so consumed with the plight of the country's orphans that he founded the Romanian Children's Relief Foundation. "It was impossible to see the conditions these children were living in and not do something about it," he says. In the 18 years since that visit, Carroll has been back to Romania dozens of times, taking photos of not just the orphans and the aftermath of the Communist regime, but also the country's beautiful countryside and striking people.
Audio Slide Show
This slide show, which is narrated by Carroll and features photos he took during his many visits to Romania, offers a description of the country and the story of Romania's orphans.
Many media outlets have produced other kinds of stories about the Bucharest Early Intervention Project and the doctors helping the Romanian orphans. Below are a few of them:
The Boston Globe, November 11, 2006
NPR's "All Things Considered" September 16, 2006
The Guardian (London) February 18, 2006
Older children fared no better. They were fed and clothed, their medical needs addressed, but they sat alone while caregivers watched TV. They ate from bowls with their hands. They slept two to a short, narrow bed, many sitting up. Boys and girls wore the same clothes, the same haircuts, the same sorrowful eyes. These were children who had rarely seen a crayon, let alone drawn cartoons.
Florin could well have been one of them. But in 2001, he became part of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP)—the first randomized study in the world to investigate whether foster care could heal the emotional and behavioral wounds of severe early childhood deprivation. Funded by the MacArthur Foundation'sResearch Network on Early Experience and Brain Development, BEIP has not only delivered Florin to normalcy, it has fueled a massive overhaul of Romanian child protective services. Its findings back with hard, cold numbers the common-sense observation that children fail when deprived of normal emotional and social interaction: dismal IQ scores, high percentages of mental illness and abnormally low heights and weights.
More importantly, BEIP's initial findings suggest that consistent, high-quality foster care, begun early enough, may reverse many of these losses and salvage young lives. These hopeful findings have implications for the services developed not just for children abandoned in Romania, but for the millions orphaned by AIDS in Africa, displaced by war in Afghanistan or shunted from one inadequate foster home to another in the United States. They may deepen our understanding of normal development, too, shedding light on "sensitive periods" during which language, emotional attachment and other vital capacities must form or be lost forever.
Heartrending opportunity 
BEIP brought three prominent American researchers to Bucharest: Charles Nelson, PhD, director of research for Children's Hospital Boston's Developmental Medicine Center; Charles Zeanah, MD, chief of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Tulane University; and Nathan Fox, PhD, professor of Human Development at the University of Maryland. Zeanah is an expert on emotional attachment, Nelson and Fox on how early experience molds the developing brain.
"For the brain to wire correctly, it needs input," explains Nelson, a psychologist and neuroscientist. "Children living in institutions lack stimulation on a grand scale, so we expect them to experience a range of problems due to 'errors' in brain development."
When the researchers first visited Romania in the late 1990s, they saw teenagers the size of 8-year-olds, not because of poor nutrition, but because emotional and social deprivation inhibit growth. They witnessed rows of toddlers who, lying alone for hours, waved hands repetitively in front of their faces in an effort at self-stimulation. Language and attachment, learning and attention, emotion, behavior, IQ—all can be damaged when infants are denied the coos, smiles, and consistent, one-on-one care of a normal childhood.
Such problems had been reported in the literature, but when the BEIP began, research was sparse and no study had rigorously investigated one of the most critical questions: Could foster care provide an effective antidote to early deprivation? Could institutionalized children placed with families catch up verbally? Cognitively? Emotionally? Could they thrive? Romania is providing a heartbreaking but rich environment to find answers.
Tragic legacy
In the 1960s, Romania's Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu decreed that the nation would be self-sufficient. Romania was to make its own bread, shoes, steel, missiles—nothing would be imported. But the state needed workers. Ceausescu mandated that all families have five children. He banned birth control and abortion and forced women to undergo gynecological exams at work to assess their fertility. He financially rewarded families for having two or more children and taxed them for every child shy of five. When families began having children they could not afford, Ceausescu built child placement centers.
By 1989, when Ceausescu's government fell, more than 100,000 Romanian children were living in state-run institutions. As images of the children's stunted bodies, blank eyes and disturbed behavior began flooding the media, Romanians were as stunned and appalled as the rest of the world. The post-Communist government began improving conditions in the placement centers.
Saving the children 
By the time Nelson and his colleagues arrived a decade later, the government had begun reuniting children with their birth families, cutting Romania's institutionalized population in half. But the country had only the beginnings of a foster-care system and no tradition of adoption. Indeed, anyone who took in another person's child was assumed to have only the darkest intentions. But a passionately committed Minister of Child Protection, Cristian Tabacaru, understood the value of family-based care and was determined to move children out of institutions and into the community. When the American researchers outlined their ideas for the BEIP, he recognized that their study could provide scientific data to convince local officials and professionals of the value of family-based care. Tabacaru offered enthusiastic support, including space for offices and a lab.
The researchers decided to follow three groups of children: those institutionalized, those moved from an institution to foster care and a control group of children who had always lived at home. The idea was to evaluate them on every conceivable developmental dimension: brain activity; emotional, intellectual, behavioral and language development; attachment to caregivers; and mental health.
But could they succeed? The team would be running this complex, multi-year project from 4,000 miles away. They needed a project coordinator, preferably bicultural, who could manage the local research staff. They needed to train that staff: Most psychologists and social workers in Romania have only undergraduate degrees and no research training. The American researchers also needed to negotiate the legal, cultural and ethical issues of studying the abandoned children, and establish a foster care network. They didn't even know if the children would cooperate or if the electrical power would be sufficient to run their equipment.
Nelson, Fox and Zeanah had visited the placement centers, however, and had seen children lying in their cots—often crying—unattended for hours. They had witnessed the consequences. As scientists, they recognized a unique opportunity to study a phenomenon that had received little attention. As men, as fathers, they were drawn to help. "I kept thinking, things happened to these children that were entirely preventable," says Nelson. "It was a conscious decision to rear them like that."
"It was impossible to go into those orphanages and not have rescue fantasies," adds Fox. "The first time there I saw a little girl with black curly hair. The parents who had abandoned her were visiting, then they just left her, abandoning her again. I wanted to put her in my suitcase and get her out of there."
A program launched
Thanks to the cooperation of the Romanian government and the child welfare agency SERA Romania, plus the political and organizational savvy of BEIP's first director, Sebastian Koga, MD, the project completed a successful pilot study in 2000 and began work in earnest in 2001. The researchers had identified 69 qualified foster families, so were able to enroll 136 institutionalized children in the study. Another 68 children from the community served as controls. All were between 5 and 30 months old.
The institutionalized children were randomly assigned to either remain in the placement center or to enter foster care. Florin was one of the lucky ones placed in foster care. His foster mother remembers when he first arrived. At 11 months, he could not sit up. He didn't smile. This little boy who now avidly describes each detail of his paintings did not babble as an 11-month-old baby should. "He would only say 'na, na, na' when I changed his diaper," recalls his mother. "He didn't like being touched."
Yet Florin was in better shape than many. Nelson and his colleagues assessed all the children before any were placed in foster care. Compared to typically developing children in the community, those in the orphanage had dramatically lower IQs (an average of 65 compared to 103) and substantially higher rates of mental illness (43 percent versus 14 percent). They smiled less, laughed less and were less likely to initiate or respond to social interaction. Their language skills were blunted, as was their ability to form healthy relationships with caregivers. Their brains reflected this paucity of development, showing significant reductions in electrical activity.
The consequences of living in the emotionally sterile institutional environment were not surprising. But the findings gave urgency to the researchers' most important question: Could foster care reverse the damage? The answer has been emerging over the past five years.
Signs of success
The BEIP provided what Nelson dubs "super-duper foster care." The project gave each family a stipend and paid for diapers and toys. A pediatrician was on call 24/7, and a social worker was sent to each home every seven to 10 days. Weekly videoconferences with the researchers back in the States let the Romanian team troubleshoot problems beyond their expertise.
Children's researcher Charles Nelson, PhD, and colleagues first went to Bucharest, Romania, in the late 1990s. Their goal was to see what effect extreme social, emotional and physical deprivation had on the country's orphans.
When the children turned 9 months old, then 18, 30, 42 and 54 months, the researchers repeated the initial assessments. They are still analyzing data (and planning a follow-up study when the children turn 7 to 8 years old), but the results so far are encouraging. The foster-care children show huge gains in intelligence, with jumps as great as 10 to 12 IQ points. They've also shown improvements in language development; the ability to form healthy relationships, even if they were withdrawn in the institutions; and improved mental health, with rates of anxiety and depression having plummeted.
Researchers have also found that the age at which a child went into foster care matters: Those placed before age 2 are talking nearly as well as their community peers; those placed later are barely improving. Similarly, IQ, weight and height gains are greatest for children placed at younger ages.
Some problems remain stubbornly unchanged regardless of the child's age at placement, however. To children with a disorder called indiscriminate friendliness, for example, all adults are interchangeable. "I remember one little boy who acted like I was his father even though he'd never seen me before," recalls Nelson. "I was there, so he grabbed my hand. He needed an adult to take him somewhere." Children like this boy are not forging the trusting relationships with specific caregivers that form the basis for intimacy throughout life.
And while many children with depression and anxiety get better, those with behavioral disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) don't seem to be improving. This could be because the developmental window for shaping attention and behavioral control slams shut very early, before the children entered foster care, explains Nelson. But it could also be that behavioral disorders simply take longer to resolve.
The researchers are planning a new follow-up study to explore this question, among others. "Everything could change dramatically when we see the kids at 8 years," says Nelson. "Our intervention may have had a huge effect at first, but over time, the children could regress. It's equally possible, though, that they're holding their own or continuing to improve. We need to find out."
A lasting impact
For Florin, the gains have been enormous—and they've included a permanent family. His foster parents adopted him in 2004. "We loved him from the very first day," says his mother.
Florin is one of 10 BEIP children who have been adopted so far. But for every Florin, another 3,000 Romanian children remain in institutions. The bleak orphanages in which teenagers the size of 8-year-olds once languished in row after row of metal-barred cribs are long gone, but the institutions that remain can still elicit rescue fantasies. A dorm in which 5- and 6-year-olds sleep is a sea of wooden bunk beds, each with a thin mattress blanketed in blue or red. No teddy bears or books, no Winnie-the-Pooh pillowcases or finger paintings proudly taped to bedposts adorn these beds. The anonymity is bearable. The gagging odor of urine and sweat is not.
The government is working vigorously to provide alternatives for these children. It continues to reunite biological families and has built a network of foster homes and small group residences. Spurred by BEIP findings, it has banned institutionalization for children younger than 2, unless they are profoundly handicapped.
The government has also initiated programs to identify and support mothers at risk of abandoning their kids. But poverty, illiteracy, homelessness and the habits of the past have left the rate of child abandonment unchanged. According to a 2005 United Nations report, 9,000 Romanian children are left in hospitals and maternity wards each year.
Thirty years of Communist rule gutted the country's capacity to cope with this problem. A staggering amount of money, research and education are needed to develop appropriate residential, educational and medical services for formerly institutionalized children and to train staff to provide them. This is where BEIP researchers hope to have their most lasting impact. They and their Romanian partners are transforming the lab and staff developed for the BEIP into the core of a permanent Romanian Institute for Child Development (ICD).
The ICD is modeled after the renowned Developmental Medicine Center (DMC) at Children's, and will import the DMC's model of integrated and collaborative clinical services, research and training. "We want to create a landmark institution that can train Romanian child development specialists, do the research and develop the services that will give these kids the best possible chance," says Nelson.
But more than that, the BEIP researchers and their Romanian colleagues want to see that the tragedy of Romania's institutionalized children is not repeated —not there, not anywhere. They are committed to making the ICD a beacon for child development specialists around the world. "In Romania, I've seen how quickly science can be translated into policy," says Nelson. "I can no longer do research without asking, how will this impact the lives of kids?"
Nelson hopes the ICD's research will translate into programs and social policy that encourage every child to flourish, transforming Romania's tragic legacy of child abandonment into one of hope.
To learn more about supporting Charles Nelson's PhD's, work in Romania,
please contact Sara Kelly in the Children's Hospital Trust 
at (617) 355-2562 or sara.kelly@chtrust.org.
Romania
Charles A. Nelson, Ph.D.
Bucharest Early Intervention Project
« first ‹ previous102810291030103110321033103410351036next › last »