So exactly how many kids have to die at the hands of their adoptive parents before it would be considered appropriate to make changes or overhaul the system?
I'm not saying that things shouldn't be looked at. But children adopted, in foster care and biological, are killed and tormented by the people supposed to love them every single day.
People snap. People change.
IMO if WM or SM were dangerous (at the time) they wouldn't have ever passed the process of adoption to begin with. It's very lengthy and rightfully so. Sherin is likely NOT the first adopted child to have been killed or seriously injured, but to my knowledge, is the first to have the embassy of both of her countries involved. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.
I simply, do not think it is right that ONE country is (possibly?) changing adoption procedures based on this one case. Is one child one too many? Certainly. NO child should ever be hurt. But, Indian citizens weren't adopting her either.
Do things need to be looked at? Most definitely. But, I don't think that people who have been struggling through the adoption process for the past year should be at risk of losing their child, a child they have prayed for, bought things for, and have LOVED should be at risk of or losing their child as a result. Unless, we aren't being told that something did in fact go wrong or was by-passed or maybe is commonly by-passed in adoptions from India.
I know they have said that everything was done perfectly as far as the adoption process goes with Sherin, but that doesn't mean it actually WAS. It could be a way of trying to keep people calm when they may have avoided some serious red-flags. We don't know.
I simply, do not want children who have been matched and are nearing the end of their adoption process, to spend an extra day in an orphanage, being institutionalized more and more everyday, if they can be in a properly approved, loving, forever home.
Lastly, I would HOPE that most people who are shelling out 30-50 THOUSAND dollars to go through this process for at least a year before ever even meeting their child, would be doing it for the right reasons.
JMO and I know that adoption is a touchy subject without these extenuating circumstances. I *think* it is fair to say that every one of us on here simply wants children safe, regardless of where they live or how they got to that place. No one, especially someone completely defenseless, should ever go through any sort of abuse, whether a one time thing, or ongoing. So, how does a governing agency do better at approving people in the first place? It's definitely a rock and a hard place, for all parties. Again, JMO