What would have happened if the USA had not passed the Magnitsky Act: would the Russian state have continued to treat orphans as “priority number 101”? 

Olga Golodets: You have asked me a provocative question there. But I welcome any arguments in society, no matter how heated and provocative, on the issue of orphans in Russia. I am convinced that such arguments are extremely useful for the state and for society. Let me elaborate. For example, the first meeting of the new government council on guardianship and the social sphere held in October last year discussed the question of orphans: family children’s homes and other new forms of childcare.

I repeat, this happened before the act you just mentioned was passed. But our message took on an added urgency today. Society experienced an emotional shock. The discussion of the issue of orphans has been elevated to a new level. Many new people have joined in. This gives me extra grounds for hoping that we will achieve the target of adopting at least 30,000 more orphans every year than before.

Is there awareness at the highest level that by banning the adoption of Russian orphans to the USA the political leadership has taken on a heavy responsibility?

Olga Golodets: I understand exactly what you mean. I personally feel responsible for all Russian orphans: those who were adopted to other countries and those who have stayed in this country. But is it right to speak only about the responsibility of the state? I think the responsibility of society is equally important.

The problem of unhappy childhoods in Russia is about much more than orphans. For example, more children are killed in road accidents in Russia than in most industrialised countries. And we have the highest rate of abandonment of children compared with the rest of Europe. Just consider this: children who have living parents live in children’s homes and boarding schools. Their parents are either in prison or neglect their children because they are alcoholics or drug addicts. Society should have zero tolerance for such forms of behaviour, they are inhumane. We will never get anywhere unless society changes.

I totally agree. But still, let us talk about the responsibility of the state. How will it go about solving the problem of orphans?

Olga Golodets: The Government has approved a series of draft laws that will shortly be submitted to the State Duma. Last year there were 128,000 children up for adoption or guardianship. Of that number, 69,000 have been placed in foster care with families. We need to increase the number of children in foster care by at least 30,000.

How do we propose to achieve that? For the most part the people who want to adopt children from orphanages are their relatives, grandmothers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters. The legislation that has existed up until now set a barrier to that. For example, even if an older brother had come of age, he had to be at least 16 years older than the child. The court could grant such permission only in exceptional cases. Now the difference in age clause has been dropped and the decision rests entirely with the courts.

We also propose to change the list of diseases that are an obstacle to adoption. We believe, for example, that first and second stage cancer should be dropped, provided of course it has been treated. After all, medicine has made great strides in the past decades. People who have been cured of these diseases are fit to take care of children.

Isn’t there a danger that children will be placed in foster care with people who are unfit simply to meet targets?

Olga Golodets: There are new rules that in fact set tougher requirements on people hoping to take in children. Previously, for example, there was no mental disorder clause. Now any mental disorder disqualifies a person from adopting.

We are not seeking to loosen controls, but to relieve people of unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. It is no secret that sometimes it went to absurd lengths: by the time a person obtained the final paper needed for adoption, the validity of the first document had expired. Now the validity of such certificates has been extended and some certificates have been declared unnecessary and have been dropped.

Another common situation is when a child loses his or her parents and the relatives do not have enough time to decide who will take the child in. After three months, the child goes to a children’s home. To avoid such situations, the term of temporary guardianship has been extended to 6 months and in some cases to 8 months.

Another very serious problem is the return of adopted children. There were 4,500 such cases last year. This is a great psychological trauma for the child, especially if they are returned after a long period of living with the family. I once met a girl who was taken in by family when she was 3 and was returned to the care home when she was 14.

Why do such things happen?

Olga Golodets: They don’t get along. The foster parents realise that they cannot bring up such a child. I remember a boy who was placed with what looked like a very good family. But after a while the parents said: “No, we can’t cope. We didn’t expect that he would be so unruly.”

You have to understand that when a family adopts a child who is not related by blood they often face unforeseen problems. In such cases the assistance of qualified psychologists and educators may be crucial. When problems arise in the adoptive family specialists must be on hand to help restore the relationship.

We recently introduced a system of mandatory training for prospective adoptive parents. And now there will be an institution offering support to such families. This will be a consultancy centre where families can come any time. The centre will provide any assistance necessary for establishing a good relationship with the child.

How will financial assistance for adoptive parents be increased? Won’t it be the case that orphans will be used to add to the family income, you know the attitude: “we’ll get the money and never mind about the child”?

Olga Golodets: We have discussed this issue many times, including with non-governmental organisations. This is our conclusion: the sums paid by the state are incommensurate with the responsibility and the burden an adoptive family is assuming. And anyway, payments will be increased only for very difficult adoptions.

Let me explain. There are no particular problems with the adoption of healthy kids in Russia. There is in fact a waiting list of 18,000 families for such adoptions. These are mainly married couples who are glad to bring a little kid into their family. Problems arise with the adoption of disabled children, brothers and sisters and children over the age of seven. Formerly the lump-sum payment to those who adopted such children was 8,000 roubles. Now that sum has been increased to 100,000 roubles. Some other measures to support adoptive families have also been proposed.

What will be the cost of introducing these new measures? Where will the money come from? Perhaps from other social budget items?

Olga Golodets: The money will be allocated out of the additional budget revenues our economy is generating. All the new laws I have been telling you about will cost about 40 billion roubles.

Is that sum sufficient? What is your assessment: what percentages of the social needs in Russia are being funded?

Olga Golodets: This is like asking a woman, “How much do you need to meet all your needs?” It just doesn’t happen. The more money the better. But the amount spent and the end effect do not always correlate. The USA spends 16% of its GDP on healthcare. We, sadly, spend only 3.7% of GDP. But we don’t lag all that far behind America on the main health indicators, for example, maternal and infant mortality.

As I see it, the number one topic is how effectively the money is spent. For example, Italy is the undisputed leader on many key counts: life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality and so on. The health of a nation does not depend only on the healthcare system. But if our healthcare were financed to the tune of 5.1% of GDP, like in Italy, I assure you that we would have a very different healthcare system. We in the government are very much aware of this and we have set ourselves such a target.

Until that target has been met, can you give solid guarantees to society that the ban on the adoption of our children to the USA will not cause a single orphan’s death or deprive it of critically needed treatment?

Olga Golodets: You know very well that no one can give society such a guarantee. Last week another adopted Russian child died in the USA. Children, unfortunately, die in America, Russia and in any other country. We have to set ourselves realistic goals. I formulate them as follows: everything must be done to ensure that children – orphans or not orphans – get all the necessary medical assistance in a timely manner.

We have looked at the types of assistance that for some reason have not been included in Mandatory Health Insurance (MHI). For example, some children need chemotherapy. MHI includes only the first course of treatment, but not all the rest. Now MHI will include all the necessary courses. Not all diabetic children for whom insulin pumps have been prescribed have been getting these pumps. Today, a doctor has no right to deny a child an insulin pump.

MHI will include endoprosthetics, speech aids and cochlear implants (to restore hearing). All this should be paid for by the state in the necessary amounts. The money for this is available. But society’s help is also needed.

How can society help? By raising money to help the state?

Olga Golodets: What I had in mind is indeed about collecting money, but not in the way you have indicated. You often read in newspapers and on the internet: please help to raise money for treatment. I often ask myself: why is money being raised for an operation that should be paid for by the state? So we have opened a hotline at the Healthcare Ministry and at healthcare agencies in every Russian region. Any foundation or individual can call and check whether such assistance in Russia is free and whether it is included in state standards.

I know that anything can happen. Take for example, the case of child with cerebral palsy. There is no cap on the costs, every rouble donated will be good for the child’s development and as such help may greatly improve the child’s life. It is right when people raise money for a child with this kind of affliction. However, insulin pumps, for example, should be paid for by the state.

Let’s go back to the issue of orphans. Do you think there is a danger that the “we’ll take care of our own orphans” policy will degenerate into tokenism and the building of Potemkin villages?

Olga Golodets: Such a policy cannot degenerate into anything because there is no such policy. Let me remind you: we have stopped adoptions only to America. There are a whole number of countries that our supervisory bodies consider to be favourable for adopting children. For example, Italy, which now adopts the largest number of Russian children.

Leaving aside the wording of your question, we cannot and must not hope that “kind foreigners” will always be there to solve our problems for us. We must show more responsibility and kindness. Russian society must be more prepared to take orphans into their families than is the case today.

Does our society have the prerequisites for such readiness? In the USA adopting a disabled child is the norm. In Russia such adoptive parents are considered to be crazy, aren't they?

Olga Golodets: I totally agree with you. The psychological readiness of our society to adopt not only disabled, but normal children is still very low. I recently talked with an adoptive family in the Samara Region. A fine mother, a fine father, average income. Just imagine, they have adopted five children. Their home is like a nursery school with a very warm atmosphere. You could see that the father himself made many pieces of furniture for the kids. Everything is very convenient, and there are a lot of modern toys. They put a small bathing pool in the courtyard. All the kids are happy and are eager to speak about their achievements.

But think of the price at which it has been achieved. The mother, Yelena Arefyeva, said that the main problem they faced turned out to be psychological. Her parents were against it. Their own children grumbled. Not all the people in the village where they live supported the family. But the mother overcame all the odds and eventually proved to all the villagers that she was right. She is a very strong person and she really takes care of the children. Unfortunately, people like her and her husband are few and far between.

In many Western countries there are no children’s homes, all the kids are in foster families. From what you said, Russia is not going to have anything like that in the foreseeable future?

Olga Golodets: I couldn’t agree more: any child is better off living in a family. Every orphan dreams of finding a family. The best kindergarten cannot replace a family for a child. But shutting down children’s homes is not a cure-all. The countries which have done so and raise orphans only in adoptive families have also faced a number of problems. The problems are no less serious than the problems of children’s homes. I can cite the example of Sweden which is more advanced on this issue than other countries. A group of former orphans brought up in so-called professional families has filed a lawsuit against the Swedish government. They claim that they were humiliated and their rights had been violated. So, we are discussing a very delicate issue there. We will proceed calmly and carefully. We have to be absolutely sure that the adoptive family will not hurt the child, will not exploit him or her or cause any harm.

In what direction do you think we should be moving?

Olga Golodets: In spite of the numerous problems I told you about there are very many instances of good and successful adoptions. People do not just adopt a child into their family. They derive great satisfaction from the knowledge that they have a large and full family, from being good both to their own and to their adopted children. That is why state policy is based on finding families for orphans.

However, there are cases when in spite of all the efforts no family can be found for a child, who then must be taken care of by the state. It is another question that care can take different forms. For example, there is a wonderful outfit in the Pskov Region called SOS Village. It is a kind of children’s home, but with a difference. Everything is arranged like in a family. Each “professional mum” lives in a separate home with 6-7 children. The children go to normal schools, do their own shopping and cooking. In short, they live like ordinary kids.

I understand that this system helps to avoid one of the worst problems of traditional children’s homes, which is that when the children leave as adults they are not ready for independent adult life.

Olga Golodets: Absolutely right. This is the most effective way to foster the necessary social habits. They should mix with their peers from traditional families and not be made to feel like “second-rate children.”

What needs to be done to make such forms of children’s home more common? First of all, the country must have enough mums and dads who are ready to become “professional parents.” Incidentally, this form of bringing up orphans was introduced in Russia under Catherine II in the 18^th century. Unfortunately, in the 1960s this format was totally destroyed and only state-run children’s homes were allowed.

I am sure that as Russia moves towards social and material well-being, the number of adoptive families in our country will grow.

Russia has still a long way to go before it is materially well off, and it is not a very comfortable place even for ordinary people. Against this background, how humane is it to ban the adoption of children to another country which is very well suited for disabled people?

Olga Golodets: Yes, it is true that Russia is not a very comfortable country to live in because of its size, climate, historical legacy and many other reasons. But we live in Russia. This is our homeland, our ancestors were born and are buried here. I am convinced that we must all try to make life in our country as comfortable and affluent as possible.

Some time ago you were against the ban on the adoption of Russian orphans to the USA. Now you are in charge of implementing the new policy. Have your colleagues presented arguments that convinced you that you were wrong? Or are you just being a disciplined member of the team?

Olga Golodets: The law was passed by the majority of the State Duma and the Federation Council, so it has to be implemented. We have to do our best because we have an absolutely worthy goal to which we have been committed from the start, and that is to have as few orphans as possible in Russia.