Torry Hansen doesn't appear for deposition

Date: 2012-02-23

By Brian Mosley

A judge will decide today whether to charge Torry Hansen with contempt of court for refusing to appear Monday for a deposition in a suit over her abandonment of a Russian boy she adopted.

Three weeks ago, Hansen was ordered by Circuit Court Judge Lee Russell to be deposed in the ongoing lawsuit filed against her by two adoption agencies for child support and breach of contract.

But in an exclusive T-G interview with Torry's mother Nancy, she said that even though her daughter was set to be deposed on Monday, she did not appear for the proceeding in Brentwood.

Larry Crain, attorney for the World Association for Children and Parents (WACAP), one of the parties suing Torry, confirmed this, stating Wednesday he has filed a motion to hold her in contempt of court, and expects that Russell will take up that matter this morning.

Russell will also hear a motion from Murfreesboro attorney Sandra Smith, who has asked to withdraw from representing Hansen after she fired Smith on Feb. 8 

Legal in Russia

Hansen also claimed that the adoption of the child was revoked in Russia on June 7, 2011, stating that the process that Torry took in revoking it "was legal in Russia."

"That's why the federal government has said no law has been broken," Nancy explained. "Some officials in Tennessee tried to make a case of it, there were no laws broken under federal law. Under state law, there were no laws broken." No criminal charges were ever filed against the Hansens when the child was sent back in April of 2010

Crain confirmed that the Russian court decision was filed in Bedford County, requesting that it be given "full faith and credit," but Russell declined to grant that motion, ruling that the Russian decision could be cited as evidence in the case "but is not binding upon this court."

"The legal implications of that ruling have yet to be fully briefed, it does not change the relief we are seeking in this case," which is child support as well as damages for breach of contract, Crain explained, however, he was not at liberty to say how much they were seeking.

Hansen also claims that Tennessee "really had no say-so" over the matter, repeatedly stating that the adoption revocation was legal in the Russian Federation.

Nancy quoted Crain as making the statement, "'it really didn't have to happen like this, she could have taken him to the Department of Children's Services.' That's because that's the way they wanted it to happen," she charged.

"The bottom line of ... " the groups WACAP and NCFA, Hansen claims, "is money -- money and having children adopted, because National Council represents all these adoption agencies, and anytime these adoptions go down, they lose millions of dollars. It's all about dollars to them."

Malicious prosecution?

Nancy said that her family has spent about $60,000 on the case. "Now would it (the suit) have been for Torry just to pay child support? She probably wouldn't have paid that much, it's the principle of it. How much has NCFA and WACAP paid these attorneys (for) this malicious prosecution? They say they want Torry to set up a trust fund, why didn't they take all the money they spent (on attorneys)? They could have probably set up a $150,000 trust fund."

She additionally claimed that in the matter of the requested child support, under federal and state law, "the first thing you determine is that the person is the legal parent or has a parental relationship with the child," stating that Torry is not the legal parent and that Russell has the translated documents from the Russian Supreme Court stating that the adoption has been revoked.

"Doesn't that tell you that she is not the legal parent and that this case should not be going forward?" she asked.

Hansen said all they are asking is for the facts in the nearly two-year-old case to come out.

"When somebody wants to make a statement regarding those facts, they have a right to do so, but the facts are what matters in this case, not somebody's opinion," she said.

0

This needs more media attention...

Hansen made a brilliant observation, one that needs further media attention and investigation:

"The bottom line of ... " the groups WACAP and NCFA, Hansen claims, "is money -- money and having children adopted, because National Council represents all these adoption agencies, and anytime these adoptions go down, they lose millions of dollars. It's all about dollars to them."

Those who claim an increase in ICA is what's in a child's best interest have no idea how money-oriented politicians and the adoption industry have become.  The goal is not to provide better domestic care for each child involved, the goal is to increase foreign adoptions, which brings a wealth of opportunities to those looking to appease those with cash and a travel visa  [Are Guatemala and Ethiopia not perfect examples of the irresponsible role  American adoption agencies/facilitators have in this sort of unassisted post-adoption mess?]

It's a shame so many have to be burnt and hurt like they're being burnt and hurt, all while adopters and outsiders still fail to see what's being done in the name of "orphan crusade".

Best interest of the child?  More like best interest of the pro-ICA movement.... to hell with the ones with serious post-placement problems. 

I Disagree With What Torry Did...

...yet what her mother is saying is, IMO, 100% correct.

I read another article where Nancy Hansen said she would be getting a website up detailing WACAP and its misdeeds. Along with other burnt WACAP clients. Again, not in agreement with what her daughter did to Artem or even that she was allowed to adopt.

Yet, at the same time, Nancy Hansen's version may have merit. And if and when she gets the website online - I want to read it. Goodness knows we have our own website about our very own I.A. agency.

Interesting.

Elizabeth Case

Can we agree to disagree?

As an adoptee who had APs who turned their backs when times got too hard in my own post-adoption story, I agree... I disagree with Torry's final decision to terminate her relationship with the adoptable child chosen for her. 

With that, I strongly believe child advocates who embrace the phrase "in a child's best interest" must recognize a fundamental truth: Torry's adoption-story and post adoption actions against her "troubled" adopted were/are damaging and wrong.

But sadly, Torry is not alone.  We have many articles that feature AP's who do the ol' Dump and Run Routine to their "very much wanted" adoptees. 

In America, we have rejecting APs who turn to very questionable American re-homing options, and we have rejecting APs who terminate their relationship and send their foreign born child far far away...back-to-the-mother-land... the place of origin.

When did dumping an adopted child when times get too tough become an acceptable form of adoptive parenting?

What's the role of adoption agency employees and adoption lobby groups like the National Council for Adoption in all of this taboo-topic in Adoptionland?

Clearly, something is missing within the adoption industry, especially when it comes to a parent's and child's best interest.  Surely those within the adoption community are seeing the gaps in policy and practice more and more clearly...

So let me ask:  Is the subject-matter of adoption termination carefully discussed during the adoption process, or are adoption agency facilitators and educators deliberately presenting the sort of information desperate and eager PAPs want to hear, because pretending post-placement problems do not exist as they really do is much safer for the business behind adoption?

No Disagreement with ANYTHING You Wrote!

Kerry:

I have absolutely NO Disagreement with anything you wrote to my comment. I am disgusted - beyond disgusted - at what happened to Artem. There are some I.A. AParents who treat their "forever children" like interchangeable commodities. I could literally share stories with you about what I've witnessed over the years.

There are PAPs who ABSOLUTELY should NOT be adopting. Period. I am particularly disturbed by Reece's Rainbow and how they operate. What's up with families adopting MULTIPLE special needs children - either one or two at a time, or several over two or three years. WHO is approving these families on their home studies? Another rant for another day.

The only "role" I can see the NCA having in all of this is - keeping the money supply operating. Perputrating (sp) the adoption monster myths keeps the PAPs ignorant and the money going to member agencies - and lobbying efforts.

You posed this question: "Is the subject-matter of adoption termination carefully discussed during the adoption process, or are adoption agency facilitators and educators deliberately presenting the sort of information desperate and eager PAPs want to hear, because pretending post-placement problems do not exist as they really do is much safer for the business behind adoption?"

Adoption termination/dissolutions are NOT discussed by professionals. Many PAPs DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE BAD THINGS which can occur. Some PAPs remain blissfully ignorant. The information is OUT THERE, but yet, PAPs (some of them) refuse to listen or are drinking the happily ever after koolaid.

The money train needs to keep on rolling. Damn the consequences for ALL involved.

My other post, coming from the perspective of a "wronged AParent of I.A. by the evil adoption industry", totally understands Nancy Hansen's wanting to get THEIR side of the story out there. Especially on the Internet. We don't call our website the "Filth and the Fury" for nothing you know.

Elizabeth Case

We're on the same page....

Elizabeth,

I feel the need to apologize.  In my previous response, my question "Can we agree to disagree?" may have read as though my incredulity was directed to you.  The question, as a title,  was directed at the whole of the adoption community, not you, specifically. You see, over the years, I have found there are still so many staunch AP supporters, they will agree with everything an AP does or says, because that's what enabling support does.  These same supporters have no idea just how huge disruption and displacement has become... and they have no idea how these acts affect the already traumatized and insecure adoptee.

The points you make are spot on, and it's refreshing to read the clarity.

Still, I'm in awe of the adoption fog, the one that entraps the PAP/AP into thinking their way and route in all things adoption-related is correct, best, and without need for raised-brow question.  In short, the arrogance, ego, and AP allowance in some of these self-proclaimed adoption/parenting experts is out of this world insane!   You wrote:

 Adoption termination/dissolutions are NOT discussed by professionals. Many PAPs DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE BAD THINGS which can occur. Some PAPs remain blissfully ignorant. The information is OUT THERE, but yet, PAPs (some of them) refuse to listen or are drinking the happily ever after koolaid.

You'd think such teaching would be mandatory -- a government issued requirement... guess not.  Hmm.  That itself says something, doesn't it?  Nevertheless, I see how one can easily be kept in the fog simply by following one type of adoption community.  Bloggers, for instance, will remain loyal to their group,  without ever having to assert a measure of independent thinking.  While this may provide a measure of comfort and support for those involved in issue-specific communities, it also presents a danger, especially if the blogging adopting community believes their adopted child has RAD and the answer to RAD is to ship the child out, or worse, the answer is found through the use of hard-core discipline techniques, as featured in our abuse cases.

Sadly, because these adoption communities are so strong and so hell-bent on being "right", without question, anyone who goes outside their box of reasoning are chastized and shunned.  In fact, I have had APs tell me stories in which specific situations would develop, and they were told by members in their own community to NOT read the information posted on PPL.   The implied message is:  many who benefit from the income generated through the adoption industry don't want the sheeple to see another side to the story they present.  They KNOW what's found beyond their own fence is pretty scary and upsetting... and a huge turn-off to anyone considering adoption, which will cost the oblivious client tens of thousands of dollars.

You gotta admit, it's one clever scheme, isn't it? It's just too bad so many get trapped in it.

When did dumping become ok? Never

It's not okay to dump a child. Biological or adopted. It used to shock me more when APs did it, not to condone actions of biological parents who have, because APs did not arrive at child by accident and should have had enough knowledge beforehand to know what they might be getting into. It doesn't shock me, sadly, anymore just due to the nature of human beings and all the horrid things you read about in the press all the time.

I have mixed feelings about "dumping" and whether to prosecute regardless of genetic ties with my concern being if people are not able to get out of a situation they clearly do not want then the child ultimately suffers and can even be killed to solve the adults problem. If not for the potential ramifications of children suffering or worse in unwanted situations I would have no problems throwing the book at her. Its the collateral damage I worry about. There needs to be services to help families that are readily available and well known. There needs to be education beforehand. There needs to be more care in vetting potential parents.

As for the happily ever after koolaid I think that applies to so few people. I am an AP. I am in the community. We want happy families. We want our children to be happy. Part of being happy is trying to give them the best childhood we can and to understand their wants and needs. I would say the majority of us are well aware of the hurt in our children and issues various families face. We are not always open with the world with the issues for various reasons. I don't talk about issues with everyone because no child needs their parent running around talking about them with everyone. Many of us talk privately or under what anonymity we can online. How do I explain this? How to get help and give help without hurting your kid in the process. I do think we contribute to naivete of new parents because we tend to broadcast and celebrate our children and the good things and downplay or keep in inner circle the difficulties. Some families have more to work through than others. The older the child and number of placements definately seems to influence that. My agency had required training as well as different training based on age of child. I think that should be a standard for all. It definately helped. What has helped most has been interaction with other families.

Pound Pup Legacy