e-mail
I’ve been resisting commenting on the whole Madonna adoption story. But a few things about the latest from the BBC News -October 16, 2006- got me talking to myself in my head, and now here I am, clicking away in an attempt to explain my thoughts to you. First, a snippet of the article:
A group of Malawian charities aiming to stop Madonna adopting a local boy has deferred efforts to gain an injunction.
The Human Rights Consultative Committee claims the adoption of one-year-old David Banda is unlawful because Madonna has not lived in the African country.
A spokesman said they needed more time to follow up reports of family members opposed to the boy going abroad.
The singer and husband Guy Ritchie have been granted an interim court order approving the adoption.
If you’d like, you can continue reading here. The first thing about this story that ticked me off was the fact that the BBC News placed it in the entertainment section. We are talking about the life of a child here. It seems wrong to me to classify this story as entertainment, no matter what his potential adoptive mother does for a living.
Secondly, I was glad of this quote by Penston Kilembe, director of child welfare in the Ministry of Gender, Child Welfare and Community Services.
He said: “The process did not start today – Madonna’s people have been pushing the papers for some time and her coming was just to sign the papers to conclude the process,” he said.
When a celebrity adopts, people assume that the trip to the child’s country happens within days of the initial conception of the adoption plan. I would guess that in most cases, the true story is that many steps of the paperwork were put into motion months before the adoption plan ever leaked to the news.
I have to admit that this whole Madonna adoption hoopla has stirred up some very uncomfortable feelings in me. Over and over I have read about people protesting the way that imperialist white people swoop into a poor country and plunder the country of children.
That stings.
Even though I know my children were in legitimate need of mothers, and that their adoptions were done legally, it is still painful to hear that perception that I am their mother because of wealth and white privilege.
I do hope that Madonna actually complies with law in Malawi instead of asking for some special exception due to her celebrity status. To do less would be to worsen the reputation of international adoption.
And finally, here’s the thing I feel strongest about in this whole Madonna adoption story: in a continent full of orphans, why did she have to choose a child with both a father and a grandmother still living? I wish with all my heart that she would have chosen a true orphan, not a child who, with a few hundred or a few thousand dollars of assistance, could be living his life with his father and grandmother.
in a continent full of orphans, why did she have to choose a child with both a father and a grandmother still living?
Did she choose? Or was the referral assigned to her?
Hopefully she’s adopting (and not giving assistance to a family) for the same reason you and I adopted. Because we wanted to build our families.
I do agree that it would help if celebrities would announce that they were adopting when they started the process (months before the adoption). But then again, it’s bad enough having friends constantly asking you where you are in the process, imagine if it were reporters.
No kidding– I feel sorry for her in the reporter dept too. Regarding choosing: half a dozen stories I read said that she was presented with a lineup of children to choose from.
Mary
I don’t think the fact that a child has living relatives affects the legitimacy of an adoption. I know a family with an Ethiopian child, and their child has a living father and grandmother. The birth-father’s story is about the saddest you could imagine, and the grandmother is in no position to raise the child. The infrastructure within the family and within the country is simply not there to allow them to raise the child. I assume that my baby’s birth parents are alive as well. I do not know why my baby’s life started as it did, but it was a most tragic beginning, and that is his reality. Because of these things, adoptive families should be committed to supporting sustainability within their child’s birthcountry and to filling in as many gaps as possible in their child’s history. Progress needs to be made, but in the meantime, children need homes and families want children to love, and many of those children do have surviving birth-families.
I know that many children have living relatives with legitimate reasons to not keep the children.
Some of these legitimate reasons include HIV+ parents, mental illness, abuse, elderly grandparents, or aunts and uncles too overwhelmed caring for their own children to think of adding another child to the mix.
One of these situations may very well describe Madonna’s child. If that is the case, I would feel much more comfortable about her case.
But here’s what I think: I think it is sad that more African families aren’t financially SUPPORTED in being able to keep their own children WHEN POSSIBLE. There are plenty of true legit orphans out there. Find adoptive families for them. But let’s HELP the intact families keep their kids.
I wonder, what if even $200 of fees from each adoption went towards grants to helping struggling African families?
I’m not stupid. I know the problem is much, much bigger than that. But if each adoptive family gave a $200 grant to one struggling Ethiopian family, that adoptive family would have benefited twice as many kids– maybe even more, depending on how many children were in the Ethiopian family.
Shoot my idea all to heck now if you want. I’m braced. But I think I have done a better job now at least in explaining my concern.
You wrote: “And finally, here’s the thing I feel strongest about in this whole Madonna adoption story: in a continent full of orphans, why did she have to choose a child with both a father and a grandmother still living? I wish with all my heart that she would have chosen a true orphan, not a child who, with a few hundred or a few thousand dollars of assistance, could be living his life with his father and grandmother.” And I responded with a differing opinion. I quite agree with your proposed, clarified approach. I’m not sure what you’re “bracing” yourself for. I did not intend to shoot you down – only to participate in the discussion. And I most certainly never called you stupid.
I’m out.
I really liked Greene’s answer to your last question:
“The AIDS orphans are not grim waifs, devoid of desire and hope; they are darling loving playful CHILDREN who deserve to grow up, to live. We must intervene to help them. Not by adoption (which touches fewer than one percent of Africa’s orphans), but by helping the children’s parents to live, by allowing the world to generate fewer orphans.”
I think at some point you need to separate the adoption part from the “savior” part because, if you don’t, you’re left with, “I should just give all the money I would spend on the adoption to help families in need.”
It’s not like you can’t do both (and in my eyes you should), I’m just saying that it needs to be separate so that you’re doing the adoption for the right reason.
S– am glad you didn’t think my idea was the dumbest ever… :>)
And, yeah, Brian, I think you’re right about separating the adopting from the assisting.
Such complicated issues. Thanks, both of you. Hearing other viewpoints helps me to clarify my own.
Mary
I’ve been thinking about this case as well. I don’t like the part where they are saying that if she would give the money to his father then he could raise him. So I think that is implying that all propective adoptive parents should be putting all thier money into supporting low income parents who are placing thier children for adoption, instead of adopting kids.
The recent article I read as well stated that the father is illetate and dosne’t know what he is signing. but I am sure that SOMEONE in the last 13 months has explained to him that by putting your child in an orphange means he will be adopted out.
The case is that this child was in an orphanage for whatever reason, which means he is elegible for adoption. EVEN if he has living grandparents.
I think international adoption should be about providing homes for *orphans*. Otherwise, you are just using your wealth and advantage to do what the disadvantaged first parents could not do. What they need is help, not someone to raise their kid for them. I can just about guarantee that if someone had given the first father some money or other assistance, he would have willing and happy to reclaim and raise his son.
I just don’t get why Madonna was matched with this child, and not an orphan in true need.
I respectfully disagree that only “true orphans” should be placed for international adoption. I don’t know anything about the specifics of the Madonna situation, but I do know what my child’s situation was prior to joining our family. And I can promise you that providing her family with money would have done very little to ameliorate a desperate situation. There are lots of reasons birth relatives decide not to parent children, and I believe these families should have the power to make a loving decision for their children. I agree with Brian about separating the desire to “save” a child from the desire to adopt. Everyone – not just families touched by adoption or wealthy celebrities should care enough about humanity to make a committment to helping those in need.
But I guess what really rubs me the wrong way is that anyone would presume to make a judgment that I should not have adopted my child when they have NO idea what they are talking about and no idea what the situation is with these children. It is insanely naive to think that all birth parents want or should raise their children.
Many, many children in Africa are in true need. To assume that only parentless children deserve to be adopted is just wrong.
I understand what MBerry is saying. After all, most domestic adoptions are of children with living birth parents, in true need of a healthy family. BUT it sure doesn’t stop me from *wishing* that Madonna’s adoption –given it’s ultra-high profile and the intense scrutiny it will automatically attract– was more cut-and-dried, above reproach, or at least a little farther above all of those objections and arguments commonly thrown out against African adoption. Jetting in to survey a carefuly pre-selected line-up of children is an awful image of western imperialism. I’ve personally encountered that attitude that we are just selfish, wealthy Americans swooping in to take what we want without a care when we could simply support Africans to better care for their children. This could not be farther from the truth for a hundred different reasons others do not care to see or understand! Madonna is not exactly helping these perceptions, and could ultimately do more harm than good for Africa’s children here. Adoption is NOT the answer, but it is an answer for a tiny percentage of the children languishing while waiting for THE solution to appear. Absolutely, our concern and generous support should extend to the estimated 99% of orphans who will never be adopted, and to all of Africa’s need. I’ll bet that, for the majority of us adopting, they already do! I do like the idea of a portion of adoption fees going to support African families, simply because it is more formalized and public. People looking on could know and feel assured that at least this is being done, I suppose…
Should we mention that she is alreading giving millions to help children she is not adopting?
Yup. Great point.