Forever Family

By now I’m sure you’ve heard that Madonna is in Malawi, planning to adopt a little girl.  If you’ve been buried under a rock, or avoiding the news all weekend (and good for you I say), then here’s a link to an article. 

This is an interesting article from the BBC.  They interviewed Dominic Nutt, who is spokesman for Save the Children.  They disagree with adoption, and he is quoted as saying:

 You cannot literally take every poor child who may only have one parent living, or no parent living, across the world and transport them all into Kensington in London.

Touché Mr. Nutt, but you’re treading into dangerous territory.

We all know this is true.  We can’t expect to save the world Westernizing everyone.  Who’s to say that our lifestyle is any better than that in places like Malawi.  As we all know, having “things” doesn’t really amount to a better life.

I’m also going to infer something that he says about taking kids out of these countries and that they may have living relatives there.  The quote the BBC uses from him makes him sound a little dense, and I think misses a point.  In some of these countries, adopting kids has become a trade.  Orphanages and even government officials are making a tidy little profit off of adopting kids out of the country.  Guatemala has been in the news recently for this very thing.  Desperate parents make easy targets for a greedy official with no heart.

Kids are being taken and adopted, but without the consent of relatives who may be perfectly willing to raise the child.  There is a word for this…it’s called kidnapping.  Mostly the adoptive parents know nothing about it, but can become victims to ugly international custody battles.

So yes, Mr. Nutt.  Considering those things, I agree.

However, if this girl is truly an orphan (the article states that her parents are dead), and a good search to find a living relative has turned up nothing, then she is entitled to be raised by a loving parent in a good home.  To not allow her that chance because that home happens to be in another country and from a totally different culture is not fair to her.  Should she live out her in an orphanage, simply because no one in her community is willing to give her a home?  Is that better for her?

But these are the least of my concerns in this story.  Here are some quotes…

-”Writing in response to e-mailed questions from Nation readers last week, Madonna said: “Many people - especially our Malawian friends - say that David should have a Malawian brother or sister. “

-”After the adoption (in 2006 of David) was legalised, Madonna said the difficulties had arisen because “this adoption essentially was the beginning of the creation of adoption laws in Malawi”.

She hoped it would make it easier for others to adopt from the country and explained: “I am the template or the role model, so to speak, for future adoptions.”

-”Malawi does not, as a rule, approve adoptions for single or divorced people, but the official at the country’s welfare department said that each case was considered on merit.”

First of all, adoption to give a child a brother or sister is not a good reason.  It can be one of the reasons, but it should not be THE reason.  I also infer that they mean to give David a sibling that shares his clearly different culture and heritage from his other siblings Lourdes and Rocco.  Again, this is treading on thin ice.  David (and eventually Mercy) need to be fully integrated into part of the family.  I hope that introducing Mercy into the mix isn’t meant to fill a gap in his heritage or give him someone to bond to.  Mercy should be a complement, but not a bridge.  If he’s feeling isolated and this is Madonna’s way of trying to appease him, it’s not going to work.  Now she’ll just have 2 children feeling separated from the family, instead of 1.

Second… well…I’m not sure why the second statement irks me so much.  Perhaps it’s thinking of Madonna as a template or role model.  I long to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I’m not entirely sure her first adoption was on the up & up.  I don’t think that adoption law should be based on how it works for a celebrity, as we’re going to see in my third rant.

My final problem statement is the exception Malawi is making to Madonna’s newly divorced status.  Cases are considered on merit?  Or are they considered by the size of the pocketbook?  I don’t necessarily agree that only married couples can adopt.  I happen to know some really fantastic single parents.  I also know some single parents who have longed to adopt and been frustrated by some countries/agencies that will not consider them because they are not married.  Then there are the same sex couples who are in a committed relationship but still do not qualify.  In my mind, none of this is fair.  However, if a country or agency makes a decision one way or another, then that needs to be the rule.  When I see things like this, it just tells me that celebrities get special circumstances, which then leads me to question the legality of the whole adoption to begin with.  Did she complete a home study or a background check?  What else is she getting out of, simply because she’s Madonna?

Ultimately, I hope this story goes away…fast.  This isn’t an overall upbeat article.  None of the ones I’ve read have been (this one is much worse).   There are holes and funky statements and suggestions that lead me to ugly conclusions.  I don’t think this is giving adoption a good name.  

However, my heart also breaks for Madonna a little.  I can’t even imagine what it must be like to live life for so long under the spotlight.  She’s been through some huge life challenges, and we’ve witnessed it all on the tabloids.  Even now, during what should be a special and private time for her family as they welcome a new addition, the cameras will snap and the rest of us will voice our opinion.  I hope they all find happiness and get some time to just be together without the rest of us watching. 

Trackback URI | Comments RSS