Hard to believe, but a Dutch couple returned their adopted Korean daughter after seven years. [I blogged about this case here]. The parents adopted the little girl from South Korea when she was 4 months old. Reports of how the situation unfolded were contradictory but it appears that thegirl was given over to the care of the Social Welfare Department in Hong Kong, where the man is a diplomat, because they could no longer care for her. The couple explained that the girl was emotionally unresponsive and all attempts at therapy failed.
As an adoptive parent, really as just a parent, I can't justify this couple's behavior under any circumstance. I don't think these people are monsters, though the result of their action is monstrous because they chose to follow their selfish and unloving side instead of choosing to tough it out and love their daughter no matter what. Sadly, the impact on this child will be devastating.
Perhaps they had good intentions when they adopted, most likely they did, but something went wrong along the way. These parents were probably unprepared to deal with some difficult aspects of adoption. It's easy to imagine only the best of a new family member, just as we do with our biological children. No one envisions mediocrity, let alone problems. I have imagined perfect things in the past only to discover the road to family or marital bliss requires lots of hard work and an effort to practice unconditional love.
* * *
From personal experience I can say that adoption can be challenging. But so can a biological child who has issues, or problems in marriage, or work-related difficulties. When our adopted son Matteo started having health issues we had to consult several specialist and it was hard for him to be around his sisters, it became challenging. This doesn't mean that my husband or I ever had any second thoughts about adopting Matteo, or that we considered him any different than our biological children.
So is Matteo a pseudonym? In the NYT article she uses the initial D., and in a comment she posted to that article, she called him David (BTW, in that comment, she also said she had 3 children at the time she adopted D., and then had 2 more after D.'s adoption). Is this the same child? If so, then in January 2008 she had no second thoughts, and in August 2009, she tells us about the disruption like it happened a while ago. Pretty quick to go from couldn't-imagine to done-deal.
Sheesh, who IS this woman?! Or does this simply represent her right to change her mind? She also says in the NYT piece that she didn't know where the idea to return D. came from when it popped into her head -- ya think Jade's story might have had something to do with it?! She acts in that article like she'd never even heard of disruption before . Those who are praising her honesty in writing that blog post, regardless of opinions about the disruption, might want to think again. . . .
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I CANNOT believe it! Military.com has scrubbed it's site to take down the article by Anita Tedaldi that I linked to above! You click on it now, you get a generic page about columnists, not even an ERROR 404 message, nothing to show the article previously existed there. If you do a search of the site for Tedaldi's name, you find two other articles by her, but not this one. In fact, the search page shows the two results, but at the top it says "Results 1-2 of about 3 [about 3?!]." And at the bottom it says, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." But when you click to get the omitted results, nothing else comes up!
WTF??? I'm a military brat, my dad was career Air Force. I'm appalled by this. Any guesses why they scrubbed it clean? I can't tell you how happy I am that I snipped this portion of the article before it was made to vanish.