Return Policy

Meet Artyom Savelyev, the seven-year old Russian adoptee who was recently returned to his homeland after his adoptive mother found his behavior too difficult to handle. SO SHE SENT HIM BACK?

I'm sure glad Mom didn't send me back with I was bad.

I have a number of questions: How bad could this kid have been? How unprepared was this mother? Who is to blame? Oh, and how did this kid get on an airplane by himself with no one to pick him up at the other end?

Not that I have ever flown solo or in coach, so I can't even imagine the fear that boy had. When I was younger I flew without my parents sometimes, but there were always other adults there that I knew and trusted. Artyom was just handed a note and sent to Russia alone. Yet, this is one case of an adoption gone terribly wrong.

In the last 10 years, over 60,000 Russian children have been adopted into families in America. And Russia is mad at the United States about this? I've been to orphanages all over the world with my mom, remember how she took me to Iraq for my eighth birthday? So, I know about orphans. There are a ton in Russia and they do not have the means to care for all of them or enough parents willing to adopt. Therefore they look to the USA. We have many people looking to adopt and hundreds of them are not qualified.

While Russia has reason to be upset with the US for this incident, well more with the airlines, they have no one to blame but themselves. The US has been pushing for Russia to overhaul its adoption laws to get in line with the Hague Convention's outlines for international adoptions. The changes would include stricter standards for qualifications of adoptive parents - something obviously lacking in this situation.

A mother who sends her child, especially one that was planned for and sought out, back to where they came from is not of sound mind. I don't care how many pictures he drew of a house burning down - you don't do that. Mom always let us play violent video games and have weapons throughout our childhood. She thought that it gave us a good view on violence and I'd have to say that I am a little TOO good at weapons now, but I have never had violent urges.

So this begs another question: What qualifies a person to be an ideal adoptive parent?

New Addition

While the movie, The Blind Side, does deal with adoption, issues of race, display and creating a family, I'd like to talk about the star of the movie, Sandra Bullock.

Who knew that she herself had adopted a little black boy from New Orleans? I didn't. My family and I were more empathetic about the press's obsession with her looming, now official, breakup with rebel husband, Jesse James. They have lasted five years and had apparently been trying to adopt, without any special benefits as celebrities, for four years. She, unlike my parents, adopted within the country - and did so now as a single mom, although legally still married. In an interview with People Magazine, she said, ''We somehow knew the right little person would come.''

And this little boy is the "right little person" and boy, is he cute. Although staged, but doesn't have the controversy that Mom's pictures with Shiloh and the twins had. First, Sandra looks like she is just playing with her baby and that baby has all of her attention. Jesse James, who? She is also NOT wearing white, but blue, which doesn't have the connotation of saving someone or something. She is also looking up at him - like he is going to save her from her troubled life rather than she is saving him.

But then there is that necklace he is sporting. I know I went through my aviator shades, mohawk, and beanie phases - but I was pretty much old enough to decide what to wear. That necklace looks a little bit like traditional African jewelry, bright and colorful with crude, handcrafted beads. It's suspicious to me because what person puts a choking hazard on their child like that? Why is that necessary? His nativism is already accentuate by his bare skin, displaying the difference in color between Sandra's hand and his body. She might be a little blind to this display and contrast, but then again contrast and drama sells magazines.

But I am glad to see that no one is criticizing Sandra for her "collectivism" like they do my mom. Most people don't know that she has already gone to court and helped to raise Jesse's children from other questionable women (a porn star. Really?)...

She's a natural. (Like Mom, but no one knows that.) And since she claims to have been in the adoption process for four years - that means she probably wasn't inspired by her role in The Blind Side to adopt a black baby boy. I hope no one tips off the NCAA that we have another suspicious adoption that will benefit Ole Miss, or rather that he might become a Longhorn for the University of Texas -Austin, where she resides. Although, Texas could use a good Left Tackle.

Right now, Sandra is just being a mom and soaking up time with her new son. Talking about their January adoption, she said, ''All I said when I met him was, 'Oh, there you are.' It was like he had always been a part of our lives.'' And that is how we all felt when we came home with Mom.

Puppies

I ended my last post a little prematurely because I had to go to class. This whole college thing is really throwing off my blogging life - but luckily I only have two more days until my appointment with my shrink. Then no more blogging ever!

But like I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Mike Huckabee once declared that adoptees are not puppies and gay parents should not "experiment" in creating a family with them. Well, that is true. Children biologically are not puppies. But look at these advertisements:

The first picture was used on a Canadian adoption agency's website. The second was, obviously, used for an animal adoption group. While of two very different subjects, they have several striking similarities. Both depict sad subjects looking into the camera for help. Their hands (paw) is placed close to their faces - suggesting either embarrassment, shame, sadness, or just makes them cuter. The little girl is obviously not fully clothed and the clothes that she does have are shredded and worthless. She is also pictured on what appears to be a filthy street, alone, and abandoned. The puppy picture also shows his misfortune by placing him behind a fence, which is typical of a shelter or brings to mind uncaring owners' homes. The point of both of these photographs is to make us, the viewers, sympathetic to these "orphans" and to want to help by adopting. So if society frames it in the same way, why can a gay couple easily adopt a puppy and not a child?

If there is a home to love and support a child, a stable environment, I don't see why a gay couple can't raise a child AND a puppy. There are thousands and thousands of children in foster care right now that are in need of homes. There are gay couples who want to have a family but biologically can't. Why not put two and two together? Because we (society, not me) think it is morally wrong? Well think about this: there are hundreds of thousands of children that are born into families that can't afford them, don't invest time in their education or development, or, sadly, abuse them. But those people can have children because they physically are able. They did not have to go through a rigorous screening process to have that child, so what is their "qualification"? I'd confidently say a gay couple, committed to one another, is more qualified to have a child than the 16-year-old girl on MTV's Teen Mom. Or look at Losing Isaiah, the movie about crack babies and cross-racial adoption. Complicate the story and replace the loving white family with a loving gay couple. To me there is no difference in what the outcome should have been. The family that was able to offer support, care, a home, an education AND love deserves to take care of a child. They are able and willing. There are children within this country (and not to mention around the world - just look at my family) that need homes and gay couples can provide that. Some people just have to get over the stigma.

Ideals

So, I was "stumbleupon"-ing the other night (see stumbleupon.com) and I discovered that there are dozens and dozens of celebrity adoptive families like ours. And some of them are even more complicated and rainbowy than ours.

For example, Steven Spielberg. Amazing director, world famous, but also has a crazy family with seven children! He beats us by one! Anyways, they have a variety of stepchildren, birth children, and two black, adopted children. Theo, one of the adoptees, went to Yale for undergrad (showing us all up, way to go). The eldest, a stepdaughter from his wife's previous marriage, is an actress with roles on The Practice and Grey's Anatomy. From the outside, I mean very outside because they successfully hid their kids from the press, it seems like their blended family functioned extremely well and produced successful adults.

But this begs the question: how is adopting a child from outside the family different than adopting your spouse's child from a previous marriage or relationship? Or is it different at all?

I'd argue that with my family that it is hard to differentiate. I was technically adopted by Mom only and then later by Dad, making me both an adoptee and a step-child of sorts. Also, Pax and Zahara were adopted with Mom filing as a single mom even though her and Dad were together at the time. But then Shiloh and the twins are their blood. But I don't think that any of this cheapens or decreases the ties I have with Dad, but those are what we made. I've been adopted twice. But I don't think the duration of our relationship determines the success of it. Spielberg's eldest daughter is not of his blood but he raised her as his own, making her an adoptee although never an orphan.

That was wordy. My point is what makes one adoptive family a more ideal candidate for adoption than another? Spielberg with all his fame and wealth, has provided his kids (all seven) with opportunities for success. He is in a heterosexual, traditional marriage. But my parents have been just as successful (even with a little more paparazzi) and have refused traditional marriage. Yet, gay couples who are in stable (probably more stable than Mom and Dad's) relationships are often denied the opportunity to adopt and raise a child when they would be able to provide all the resources needed. More on this later, I have to run to PSYC 101.

Sister #2

So, Z is my oldest-younger sister. She is fabulous, into style stuff, and SUPER girly. All kind of surprising considering she was a malnourished Ethiopian. But she is my sis and has taken the expensive clothing and looks as part of herself. My other sister, Shiloh, HATES everything girly. She would much rather dress like Dad, see below, and Shi, Dad and I hang out all the time. Magazines speculated that she might be bi or bi-curious, but she just likes Dad. I like Dad too. Dad took me to the park and the Super Bowl - but I wasn't dressed just like him so it didn't raise a commotion. Well, World, Shiloh isn't loved more because she is Dad's little clone. She is just the same as everyone else. Maybe even considered not as special because she has always been of privilege. Sometimes, looking back, I think that Mom and Dad tried to spend less time with them (Shi and the twins) because they had no disadvantages ever. Well, after being adopted, I had no real disadvantages and I don't remember those that I did have. Mom takes us all on trips to make sure we know what the world is like - the worlds we came from. She makes sure that Shi and the twins see it. We all are shuttled to crazy places like Iraq and Africa, but I am supposed to be empathetic and a symbol for the people... Like, look! This kid was one of you and now he is helping you. Shiloh is considered just another American girl, a rich American. Mom hates that. That is why she has raised us to be aware of all the heartbreak and tragedies in the world. It was mostly depressing, but we always got it. We are lucky. But so is Shiloh. And she just happens to like dressing like Dad. Get over it, she is a lucky girl.

Misconceptions

We are not a normal family. We have never been. I don't think any one of us has tried to explain that we are normal or qualify ourselves as such. But there have been plenty of photo-ops that have framed us as such. Like this one, when I was eight.

We are all getting ice cream, which actually is a family favorite, but if my parents' publicist didn't think it was necessary for us to be photographed at this particular time then we wouldn't have gone to get it. We had nannies, bodyguards, assistants, etc. that would have gotten it for us. But that is besides the point.

Look at how we are organized. Shiloh stands out. I'm with Dad in the back because growing up, he was the best thing for me, my best friend. Zahara is reaching for Pax's hand, which is something they did a lot. Z has taken a lot from Mom over the years, and her caring nature is part of it. Especially when it comes to Pax. He is kind of ignored by the press, but that is because he isn't the first like me, gorgeous like Shiloh or part of the twins. He is the ultimate middle child even without the factor of adoption. But Z and Pax are very close and have bonded over their, hm I don't know what to call it... isolation from the blondes i.e. Shiloh and the twins.

I've never really thought about it before, but look how different we all are! It is obvious that we are not of one bloodline, but is it obvious that we are a family? We look like an assemblage, a group haphazardly thrown together (although we all know how it was planned geographically. Thanks, Mom.). But we ARE a family. We all eat ice cream together. We have nicknames. Unlike other adoptive families from books I have been reading like Jesusland by Julia Scheeres, no one has ever been made to feel different or lesser or even unwanted. Our parents did not tell us that we were adopted for "christian" reasons or, as some gossip rags would say, as a publicity stunt or to save our parents' partnership. Celebrities are bored, but as Mike Huckabee once said, "children are not puppies." Although that man is an idiot, he has a point (not about gay marriage, because he is clueless) about children. Taking care and loving them is a serious commitment, especially if they are riddled with illness or even have a different culture than you. It takes a great person to adopt, and an even greater person to successfully adopt. It is not something to be done out of boredom or sadness or especially not a pending breakup. I'd consider us a success story, but I'm biased. This is my family.

About Me

So hello, World.

Some of you may think you know me from the publicity that my family gets. Well, surprise, surprise, that is all a show. My parents, although partially crazy, are actually very smart and cunning about these things - also they hire good people. So, this is my perspective. The side you have never heard. The part that my mom and dad don't want you to know, both to protect me and to protect themselves, but I am an adult now. Yes, World, I am 18 and attend Arizona State University to maintain anonymity and have a normal college experience. Of course, I am speaking out now, but what is normal and can I ever really have that?

Most would say no, you can't be normal because you come from extraordinary circumstances. Well, that is certainly true. I was adopted from an impoverished nation into a home of money, fame, drama, and love. Yep, even love! Anyways, the point of this blog is to come to terms and analyze my life as it stands. I am not just another opinionated, annoying, college student who is setting up a blog because he thinks his opinion matters and people care - but honestly, my shrink recommended it. So there. I'm complicated - as most of us are - but my complications are about to unfold.

Mad JP