Always a "Loophole"

First, there are a few people who asked if it was okay to post something on their blog requesting prayers for us and by all means, yes, please do so...we really new prayers.

Second, as black and white as our case appears, there is always a "loophole" that can be used to support the prosecuter and Inna's position. I have found two specific areas of the law that are weak due to vaguely stated terms/generalizations that could be open to inerepretation. There is also one step in the adoption process (in order to a child to be "available" for adoption) that I am not certain the baby house followed and I am waiting to find out the answer to that question.

In all honesty, I have the gut feeling that we are not going to win this. However, I have to see it through to the end for my own peace of mind so I can walk away knowing I did everything possible to bring Stephen home and fight against this injustice.

Thankfully, the representative from the Ministry of Education is a lawyer and has agreed to write up and submit the appeal for me. The judge had suggested I have the appeal prepaed by a lawyer. She asked me to prepare a statement including everything I want to say: feelings, opinions, facts, laws, etc... So I have just finished the first draft and would like opinions please.

Here it is:
At the time of this court hearing, April 17, 2007, I have been in your country for the purpose of adopting for fifty-seven days. I have spent 34 of those days bonding with the minor child, Andrey Knyazev, who was presented to me and my husband as being available for adoption on March 1, 2007. I am confident that this is the first time in the history of adoption by foreigners that on two separate occasions, for two separate children, the birthmother has reappeared out of thin air after abandoning their child for nearly a year. The first time this happened to my husband and me we were devastated, but we felt that we must move forward and find another child…that child is Andrey.

You can’t imagine the shock we felt after completing the bonding period and going to court, having the judge approve our adoption and completing the fifteen day waiting period I was informed that his biological mother has contested this adoption. I cannot describe the grief I feel over this situation. For the record, I believe the laws which allow a couple to bond with a child, submit the application to adopt that child and go to court for the purposes of adopting that child only to have the birthmother return at her leisure is absurd. It is harmful to all parties involved and your nation as a whole.

I feel that these innocent children are dropped off like laundry that can be picked up whenever these women please with no regard to the devastating consequences and lifelong ramifications that the child will suffer. As good and wonderful as the caregivers are and exceptionally well run a baby house is, the fact remains that institutionalization is far from being the most suitable environment for a child to grow and flourish and reach his or her potential. Inna, her siblings, and her birth parents are the ideal example of the vicious cycle of poverty and family dysfunction that leads to numerous negative social issues. You now have another generation of orphaned children being victimized by the selfish and irresponsible behaviors of the biological parents.

This young girl has been absent for nearly a year. I call her a girl and not a woman as she is obviously not a woman who recognizes the consequences of her actions nor does she accept personal responsibility for her actions and decisions. Rather, she is a child who has for nearly a year put herself and her own desires before the needs of her child and now selfishly wants to prevent him from having the love, life, family and opportunities that he deserves. It is clear from all of the documentation from the Director of the baby house and the Ministry of Education that attempts were made to find Inna. However, her last registered address was the orphanage in which she was registered and no longer resides. In the course of a year she has had only 18 days of direct contact with her son before he was taken away by the police after they were called by a neighbor complaining of numerous drunken strangers, loud parties and a constantly crying baby. The police obviously deemed it necessary to remove Andrey from that environment. That was the last time she saw her son. She then has the audacity to lie in her appeal stating that she, with the assistance of her former orphanage director, placed him in the baby house. She even gave an incorrect date of birth for Andrey in her letter to the court! Are these the actions of a fit mother? I say no. I am this child’s mother. His eyes light up when I come into the room and he cries in my absence. I have been with him when he was sick in the orphanage and my husband and I know all of his habits. We love him – he is our son. He knows us as his Mama and Papa.

She has known where her son is for all of this time and yet she has chosen to not visit him in the baby house. There is no excuse for this. She does not presently have a home or a job and is pregnant again by a man who is in jail! She does not have the emotional stability or financial means necessary to raise Andrey and provide him with the medical care he presently needs. He will be one year old on April 25 and he cannot sit up on his own. His physical and cognitive development is greatly delayed. Inna proposed that he remain in the baby house until she can provide for him. This is unacceptable as this is based on an unknown and uncertain possibility that she will eventually be capable of caring for him. Considering she is not able to support herself or the child she will give birth to in the near future I see no possibility that she can care for Andrey in a timely fashion. His developmental delays will only multiply the longer he remains in the baby house.

The prosecutor claims that this adoption is illegal and yet this is not true. The rules regulating the centralized registration of orphans were approved by the decree # 1346 of August 09, 1999 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan according to paragraph 5 of the article 209 of the Law on "Marriage and Family" states:

Minor children are eligible for adoption if their parent(s) either
died,
or are unknown or were found missing or dead by the court;
or were found incapable by the court;
or were deprived of their parental rights by the court;
or gave an official permission for the adoption of their child;
or for no good reasons avoid their parental responsibilities;
or do not live with their child for over 6 months;
or avoid the upbringing and support their child.

Andrey is eligible for adoption by the establisment of two of the above points: his parent(s) did not live with him for over six months and have avoided the upbringing and support of their child. Furthremore, according to Aricle 82, point seven, the court has the right to make a decision in interests of the child about his (its) adoption without the consent of the persons specified in Points 1, 4-6 of the said Article. Last, to determine that the child is an orphan as defined by U.S. Immigration Law it is stated that “If no parental relinquishment letter exists, an original written explanation from the maternity hospital or local police station describing how and when the child was abandoned and a certification from the police or the Address Bureau that the mother could not be located is required. If the hospital statement or other document provides an address for the mother, there must also be a statement from the adoption agency representative indicating that s/he has visited the address and the mother is not residing there.”

All of the above grounds apply in this case and it is my sincere hope that the court do what is best for the child, as the law establishes is the paramount objective and charge of the court under Decision No. 17 of December 22, 2002 of the plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and stand by decision #10/815 of March 19, 2007 in the urban court, to grant the adoption of Andrey Knyazev. Any other ruling sends the message that the orphanaed children in Kazakhstan are of no value and that their lives are at the mercy and whim of selfish, irresponsible birthmothers and a system which holds nobody accountable for the future and welfare of of its’ orphaned children.