We are the parents of an adopted child from China. When we first started looking into international adoption, we were quite taken with the PR campaigns waged by the Russian adoption agencies. We'd even gone so far as to put down a $500 deposit on an application. But we continued doing research. One troubling tipoff was a quote from an adoptive family in the agency brochure reporting their post-adoptive status: "fine." Just one word. And not a glowing word.
Over the next few months, after more learnings about russian adoptions which 6 years ago were well known as likely to be troublesome due to things like fetal alcohol syndrome, aids, and orphanage conditions worse than most, we switched to China especially after speaking to a couple from my mother-in-law's office who had nothing but great things to say about their agency, the transparency of the Chinese intl adoption process, and the relative health of chinese institutionalized kids.
But we also struggled, post adoption, to find resources to help us with delayed development. What we found were lots of services to help parents without financial resources - basic medical assessment services like vision and hearing. We finally found an organization to help us with a child who at 10 months old was only at a 4-6 month developmental level. She couldn't hold her own bottle, didn't have fine motor control and couldn't manipulate toys, and had a bald patch on the back of her head from lying in a crib all day. To my daughter's credit, with her will to survive and our inexpert but loving care, she was able to progress thru 8 months worth of developmental goals in 4 months. By the time we'd gotten the right help on board, she had pretty much caught up by herself.
We were fortunate. There is this false belief that "love will conquer all". As we all know, love alone can't repair failing marriages or business relationships or parent-child relations. One of the tragedies of the human condition is that adults are required to parent children with unique challenges that sometime exceed the ability of said imperfect, untrained but well-meaning parents.
I have some sympathy for the parents but I have to wonder where was the social services agency in this? The family could not have adopted without a initial homestudy followed by in home visits. They only had the boy since the end of last year - less than 6 months. Did they reach out for help locally? As the parent you are expected to remain the voice of sanity. You are supposed to do something rational before it gets to the point of no return.
It's not just a parenting issue. Adoptions can involve behavioral issues that local social and medical agencies are unfamiliar with. And it's not just an adoption issue - or are all biological kids innately in-tune with their parents and present fewer challenges?
There are millions of kids in orphanages world wide that would be much better off in permanent homes. International adoption should not be the first choice of a country but can be successful. What is needed is two things. One: eliminate the financial transaction aspect of adoptions that prioritizes the completion of "adoption transactions" over the well-being of adoptees. Two: create a mechanism to build a critical mass of knowledge, world-wide, about adoption issues and get it out to prospective and existing adoptive parents.
" "We believe there is a culture of secrecy surrounding adoptions so as not to impede the flow of adoptions happening, but in the process, thousands of families are traumatized and scarred," said Skeirik. "We believe it is possible to be both an adoption advocate and honest about the significant costs."
Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, agrees that all agencies, institutions and countries involved in adoption need to be more forthcoming with information about children. He said support is needed for all families -- those with biological, foster and adoptive children.
"There are insufficient resources for parents who need help with their kids, period," he said. "It's not about scaring people off adoption, but helping people do a good job as parents." "

"@Badlands99: 'A firearm is THE greatest equalizer. Two large young men attacking an elderly woman is a foregone conclusion. Unless she has a pistol. Then their advantage disappears.'
Can I join in here?... let me finish that paragraph for you.
"Unless those two large young men also have a gun each - another forgone conclusion. Unless she has two big guns & has been practicing to some old school Clint Eastwood movies."
Wait...
"(cont...) Unless those two guys happened to be die hard fans of 50(fitty) cent, carrying a couple of pieces themselves..."
and then...
"But what if the elderly woman was actually the 'Old Woman' from Worms 2 (I'm sure someone will get the reference)... then uh-oh"
...in the (distant) future
"... Unless the two cybernetically enhanced guys happened to have a portable version of the laser just demoed by NIF and threatened to turn the old lady into a small star through readily available Nucleur Fusion technology... it'd be a forgone conclusion... we could use elderly women as a clean source of energy"
All humour aside... I'm sure you can see my point... it'd be great (?) for only old (and otherwise defenseless) people and oppressed groups to own guns, but sadly in your country (I'm in Australia - we don't have such liberal gun laws... thankfully) and in any country for that matter, guns aren't restricted to those that need them... those that already have an edge have equal access to them to gain yet more power.
For every instance that a weak person has a gun to protect themselves... how many are there that the antagonist has the gun to intimidate their victim. As unlikely as it may sound, imagine a scenario of an elderly woman with a gun attacking a couple of fit young men... the guys could just back off and escape quite easily if little miss pensioner wasn't brandishing a pistol in their faces.
Guns (like any weapon) give an advantage to he/she that wields the weapon. Period. Furthermore the bigger/better/more efficient the weapon (or better trained the individual)... the bigger the advantage...
I'm not saying I know or have thought of a magic solution to world peace... i don't know any stats, but I get the feeling gun related "incidents" are a lot higher in the US than they are in OZ... because (as I understand it) you guys have "the (consitutional) right to bear arms"...
Don't get me wrong, I've held guns in my hand before aand I freely admit to enjoying an afternoon at the shooting range (and I'd like to go hunting as well)... but I also have a healthy respect for their destructive capabilities... As a (hopefully) future (geeky) LEO myself, I can train in hand to hand... I can even train against knife attacks... but guns are a whole different kettle of fish...
IMO guns don't belong anywhere in public unless there's a target or game animal involved... With the exception of LEOs - who (here at least) use them as a final resort... not the "primary weapon" you make it out to be. Outside of the aforementioned "guns-for-sport" domain... guns only beget more guns.
This isn't a personal attack on you, but your argument has a gaping hole when the gun is in the wrong hands - which can so easily be the case."