Intercountry adoption can be an exciting and rewarding experience in the realm of international family law. While adoptions are generally joyful times for families, intercountry adoption involves the complex interplay of two nations’ legal systems. Some countries may be part of the same treaty, while others are not, creating further complications. For example, the United States is a signatory of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children, while Russia is a member of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The United States has signed but not ratified the CRC.
The Shatto Family Case: A Tragic Adoption Outcome
Since 1991, approximately 60,000 Russian children have been adopted by U.S. families, with most cases proving successful. However, one adoption in Texas ended in tragedy, raising significant questions about the intercountry adoption process and the recognition of foreign legal judgments.
The Shatto family of Texas adopted two Russian boys, Max and Kirill, who had been removed from their biological mother due to her struggles with alcoholism. Max, who tragically passed away, had severe developmental and behavioral issues, including self-injurious behaviors. His short life ended when he fell from playground equipment after his adoptive mother left him unattended for five minutes. A law enforcement investigation determined that the death was accidental, but the case still prompts questions about transparency in the adoption process.
Key Questions Raised by the Tragedy
1. Should There Be More Transparency and Medical Evaluation in the Adoption Process?
Max’s adoptive parents were unaware of the full extent of his medical and behavioral issues prior to the adoption. This raises concerns about the level of information prospective parents receive. Should children at risk of disorders like fetal alcohol syndrome undergo more rigorous evaluations? Should there be greater transparency about the child’s health before the adoption is finalized?
2. Should Foreign Adoption Judgments Be Enforced in the United States?
The second key question is legal in nature. After Max’s death, Russian authorities nullified the adoption of his brother, Kirill, through the Pskov Regional Court, the same court that originally granted the adoption. Under Russian law, local adoption is required before international adoption can occur, granting the child permanent U.S. residency and citizenship.
However, should a judgment rendered by a foreign court—such as the nullification of Kirill’s adoption—be enforceable in the United States? In this case, the short answer is no. U.S. courts would not recognize the Russian court’s decision unless there was evidence of fraud or a treaty between the two nations for the enforcement of judgments, which does not currently exist between the U.S. and Russia.
Conclusion: Broader Implications for International Adoption
This heartbreaking case raises serious questions about the intercountry adoption process, from medical transparency to the enforcement of international family law judgments. It may also prompt a reevaluation of current policies governing international adoptions to prevent similar tragedies in the future.