As previous institutionalized child, I stand against the movement of deinstitutionalisation

By Vadim Dovganyuk

Note: An orphan is officially someone who has lost both parents, which stands against everything Lumos, J.K. Rowling and all others speaking against institutionalization, and the correct word of “foundling” should be used. I have, however, chosen to ignore this for this blog post, and rather just focus on the important matter at hand.

Ever noticed that sometimes you are forced to support something?
Personally I have, often.. very often even.

One of those forced supports, or rather forced opposition is to the Lumos charity, and almost all other “deinstitutionalisation charities”, just because I actually have been an institutionalized child myself…
As previous already noted at my blog posts this is caused by their ignorance, with the recent added facts of not looking at reasons behind children being at institutions, added to my massive list of previously noted bad parts of these charities.

When it comes to the fact of having lived at children’s homes, until about one and a half year ago, means also I am forced to support Pro-Life movements, just as one of the easiest examples.
As when it comes to abortion activists, they have much more than once used orphans and those with mental and physical health differences and problems as reasons why abortion should be possible.
Always forgetting something far more important, which is that a certain act (this is a family-safe blog), needs to be done before a baby could actually even come into the discussion in the first place.
The fact behind it, is that people have become too accustomed to an act which leads to a new life, to even think of the fact of it leading a new life..
Yet, who could we blame either way, as when we are honest, we live in a world where this act is not actually stigmatized, but rather cheered on, even though it gets an 18+ or 21+ age rating when it comes to movies and such…
We are too ignorant to notice that it didn’t start at the consequences, didn’t even start at this act, but rather that society is too focused on spreading “the joy” of this act…

Which bring us back to the Lumos charity, but more importantly, Joanne K. Rowling as spokesperson, president, and founder of the Lumos charity…
Her being the writer of the famous “Harry Potter” series would make you expect that she would not be someone who is too ignorant to not notice the effects of the world.
Sadly, you could not be more wrong.
When it comes to her specifically, she speaks out to having started Lumos because of Eastern European orphans, them not having families while having living family being an more specific reasoning.
Now, it is no lie that a large part of the “8 Million” orphaned, and institutionalized (An Orphan does not equal being institutionalized), children with living parents, probably could in fact live with their families, but that most certainly does not count for every orphan, like I experienced myself.

In my personal situation my biological parents abandoned me across borders at Ukraine, reason for this being that this is the “area”(not to be confused with country) where most of my ancestors have lived.
In their terms I would have a chance of a better future at Ukraine, and being without them, then they thought I would have with them…
Looking back at this, I could actually not disagree…
As when I look at most of my current friends, they have not even a clue about anything of life, and even though some say “you should be happy as a child”, happiness does not prepare you for a future as adult…
Fact being though, that if “happiness for children” truly was that important to adults, they would, and should, stand against all forms of bad, yet, almost everyone currently supports a form of bad, whether it is a form of hatred or just ignorance does not actually matter that much…
Yet, my biological father was an abusive man, which my biological mother would have probably been unable to leave with me, and back then my biological siblings, and even if she would have been able to, I would not have been at my place with the man she is now married to, and the children through this marriage, which have been forcing, with the exception of 1, my biological mother to not stay in contact with me and my biological sister.
In the end I am completely happy how my life turned out to be, which would not have been able to be this way without institutions.

Note: The choice of using the term “area” instead of “country” has everything to do with the history of the area which we nowadays call Ukraine. Fact being that most of my ancestors lived at the locations of Crimea and the current Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava, Sumy and Kherson oblasts of Ukraine, and the far-western area of Today’s Russia (The area close to the border with Ukraine and Belarus).

Eventually, if I would compare my actual past to that I could have had, I would never have it different, even if it would include not being adopted.
As when we truly look at facts, the problem behind orphanages is not that a lot of orphans actually have families they are not living with, but rather the cruel circumstances at many orphanages worldwide.
As whether we look at Eastern Europe, or at the location of J.K. Rowling and Lumos themselves, which is the United Kingdom, orphanages and institutions all over the world experience problems because of just 1 fact which causes everything…
The economical system…

The true fact of the problems of institutions is that money flows 2 ways, to these deinstitutionalisation movements, and all sorts of campaigns, not all focused at deinstitutionalisation…
Yet, the real need is for carefully selected carers, that instead of thinking only of money, actually only think of caring…
They are in fact in existence, good carers, don’t get me wrong, but as even they often speak out themselves, they are opposed by the many who only work for the money.
When it comes to institutions, the need is at happiness, kindness, respectfulness, understanding… or quite some more words that all pretty much equal just the word “compassion”.
However, this can’t exist with the many people who are pretty much forced to do this work, instead of actually wanting to do this, and seeing less as work, but rather as way of helping.

Right now, at many countries this type of work has even become volunteering, which yet again brings problems, as volunteering means no payment, and even though it should not be about the payment, without payment it once again equals problems…
To keep it simple, without payment there is a need for a side-job, or a “real job”, and the carers become prone to making mistakes, or actually more to the point, abuseful.
As one of the very few minor(below the age of 18) orphanage workers at Russia, experiences have affected me, I have not only seen it happen, but also had the chance of asking about it.

At the orphanage I most often help out at, because of privacy will not be named, quite some workers/carers can’t keep up because of the stress these locations give, not because of the orphans or work itself, but rather by what they experience outside of the orphanage, which most often is misunderstandings or hatred.
To quote one of them which specifically spoke out against Lumos, after one of the Russian foundations in support of orphans “Измени одну жизнь” published an article in support of Lumos:
(The following has been translated to English by a third-party to ensure the message would not be altered.)
“I do not understand how people can support them. The article which I read about them states the right problems, like poverty, wrongful volunteering, and orphanages being seen as a form of business. But these problems will not be gone when the children would be send back to their parents, but they would rather intensify.
The recent years there have been not many orphans who have been adopted (at Russia), which is caused by the stigma that is at the children who are (seen as) orphans and street children.
Orphans and street children are not even thought as an possibility by a lot of adults who want to be parents, as they rather want to have blood-relatives.
Yet, most orphans and street children (at Russia) have become classified by these terms because their original parents are unable to take care of them.
The problems that are unseen to those who stand against the carers of these children, is that the problems of their original parents are tried to be tackled by other charities, mostly unsuccessful.
We rather also see every child happy with a family, but, I would not want them to be with parents that are addicted to alcohol, abusive, or worse, yet, this is why the majority of children are left by their parents, or are taken away from their parents.
Once these problems would be gone, I would only support the removal of orphanages, but right now it would be bad for children to be returned, even with added support, as previous attempts here at Moscow have shown…”

In basics, I could not add much more to that myself.
Apart of something specific, which is that there are indeed a large part of orphaned children who could be returned, but those are most often 1 specific part of the orphaned children…
As some could have guessed, it are those with mental and physical differences, which right now do indeed equal the majority of those who are in institutions in general, which also actually includes adults…
However, let me make something clear before going on, which is that adults who are at institutions could most often not be removed, once again, because of the way our current economics work.
The simple fact being that not all of society actually could work, and currently the society is 100% focused at everyone either working, or not having a true ability to survive…
Still, when it comes to children, most of those with mental and physical differences could return to their parents if there was support, but we forget an important question…
Which is, would their parents support this?

The facts behind Lumos, J.K. Rowling and all others who support deinstitutionalisation is that they basically live in the world of Harry Potter, as they basically live in a fairy tale, as they forget facts…
The obvious fact is the above question, which is that most parents just don’t want to care for their children, even if they would be getting extra help, which would make the amount of neglected and abused children grow, which currently is already a huge number of children, but more importantly, would make the reasoning of this preventing abuse and neglect because of the known trafficking that happens at certain countries also coming from institutions fade, as the number would probably remain stable or even increase in comparison of now at abuse and neglect, even though it would decrease the number of trafficking… Removing one problem, should not be increasing another…
Also an obvious fact is at economics, which is kind of the main problem behind almost every problem around the world right now…, even with added economical support for these parents, you could not be certain of what would happen, they could use this money for their own purposes instead of those of their children, and with the known corruption at governments at for example Eastern Europe, but of course also at the rest of the world, expecting checks is kind of like someone telling a joke, as the chances of this going like it should, is highly doubtful.
But my personal main importance at facts is that there are many reasons why parents could leave their children behind, and that this is not always bad.
Like I spoke out before, my life would have been bad with my biological parents, I could not actually deny it, but people should also not ignore the fact that people would turn out very differently, including people’s personality, as in the end, an orphanage is often actually a more stable environment than parents, who do not actually want you, would offer.

There is much more that I could use as reasoning to stand against deinstitutionalisation, but the main thing behind everything is that it is just not possibility for the majority of children (and adults) at institutions to be returned to their parents.
Yet, because of all of the campaigns of the deinstitutionalisation movements, it has become even harder for those at institutions, as there is only more stigma created, instead of taken away.
These movements always cry out that those who oppose them could give them better solutions, but the fact is, this is no solution, this is a causer of yet more problems.
J.K. Rowling is someone who I see as an inspirational person for what she does at the other problems of the world, yet, when it comes to institutions, and orphanages in specific, I feel angry.
And I just hope that they one day will recognize an important fact, and that is that situations are as good or bad as you make them, and that many at orphanages will grow up to important parts of society, these are actual plain facts, and not just words…

Note: If you understand my way of voicing things, you will understand the reason of usage of videos.