So, Madonna's decision to adopt an African baby has led to quite a brouhaha. I am pretty darned well informed on International adoption in general and I personally don't see why a big fuss is being made here.
Some people claim that it is wrong that Malawi's residency rules were waived for her. However, do we know if this is the first or only time they have allowed a foreigner to adopt without living there 18 months? This is a poor country, and I am sure government officials aren't above bending rules in exchange for money...like any government come to think of it.
Some people think her heart wasn't in the right place and she only adopted because it was trendy or to keep up with Angelina and Meg. I can't even begin to fathom Madonna's motivations, but it seems at least possible that she wants to help a really poor child, that she truly fell in love with this particular kid while visiting the orphanage, and/or wants help the other orphans in his country in the process. Maybe not, but I don't know how that can be determined.
I'm not comfortable with the whole rich-and-famous Americans/Europeans swoop in, pick a cute kid from the millions of destitute, swoop out thing. In Madonna's case, the million-dollar orphanariums she's set up are run by a Kabbala organization, which gives me a whole other set of willies.
On the general issue of international adoptions, I can see how residence requirements would be a good idea in order to provide the adoptive parents with a practical experience of life in country, which then in turn could help ease the transition for the child. Because of that, I don't think waiving the requirement for money (although understandable in the case of poor countries) is in the best interest of parent or child.
I'm not comfortable with the whole rich-and-famous Americans/Europeans swoop in, pick a cute kid from the millions of destitute, swoop out thing.
Although I totally see your point, that's really close to the way most International adoptions work. If you are adopting from Ukraine, you are approved to travel there after sending them a dossier. When you get there, you are shown as many photo albums as you care to look at. You pick the kids you want to meet from the albums, travel to that orphanage, meet as many kids as you want, then pick one.
Quote:
In Madonna's case, the million-dollar orphanariums she's set up are run by a Kabbala organization, which gives me a whole other set of willies.
That I didn't know. I thought she gave 3mil towards the running of the current orphanages. I don't know how I feel about that aspect. Let me look into it.
Quote:
On the general issue of international adoptions, I can see how residence requirements would be a good idea in order to provide the adoptive parents with a practical experience of life in country, which then in turn could help ease the transition for the child. Because of that, I don't think waiving the requirement for money (although understandable in the case of poor countries) is in the best interest of parent or child.
No other country that I know of, that allows Intl. adoption, has a residency requirement. Some countries require the children not be allowed to be adopted by foreginers until they have been in the orphange for some period of time, up to a year. I think that's a terrible idea considering the development infants go through in the first year that can be helped or hindered by their environment.
I can see an argument for it being BETTER for her to adopt from countries like Malawi. An orphan in America or the UK is going to have a better life than one from Malawi - so it helps the child from Malawi more.
That said, I'm not sure I really care where you adopt from. Whether the adoption is a good one can be evaluated without making any generalizations about where you should be adopting from.
I can see an argument for it being BETTER for her to adopt from countries like Malawi. An orphan in America or the UK is going to have a better life than one from Malawi - so it helps the child from Malawi more.
True, but do you feel adopting parents have any responsibility towards understanding their children's culture and heritage?
Also, this kid was not an orphan, he was placed in an orphangae by his father who couldn't afford his care after the mother died. I believe he meant to get him back one day when he could. Also, supposedly he has said that though he originally approved the adoption, he didn't know it was permanent, he thought it was temp care and that he would return to him one day.
In my opnion she should have chosen a true orphan.
BBC had an interview with a Scottish MP who apparently is also some leading UK-based advocate for plight of Malawi (Malawian?) orphans. She was not giving her blessing to the Madonna actions, not so much because she thought it was bad for the kid, as much as because she felt that it gave the wrong impression as to what should be done about the situation. i.e. She would rather people didn't think about how they could rescue one child, and 'at least make one life better', but preferred that the attention be placed on improving the lot of all Malawi(an) orphans in general.
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
True, but do you feel adopting parents have any responsibility towards understanding their children's culture and heritage?
Yes, but I don't know that Madonna is necessarily violating that... I'm not sure it requires as much knowledge as living in a place for 18 months would give.
Quote:
Also, this kid was not an orphan, he was placed in an orphangae by his father who couldn't afford his care after the mother died. I believe he meant to get him back one day when he could. Also, supposedly he has said that though he originally approved the adoption, he didn't know it was permanent, he thought it was temp care and that he would return to him one day.
In my opnion she should have chosen a true orphan.
Oh ok, well that makes it quite different.
In the case, I would say that Madonna is being unethical. But that isn't that related to the fact that it's international adoption but to the fact that the child will be far away from the father - which is obviously far more likely in international adoption, but not limited to it. The language difference is also a factor, in that the father may not be able to communicate with his son in the future. Which again, is far more likely in international adoption, but not limited to it.
But that isn't that related to the fact that it's international adoption but to the fact that the child will be far away from the father - which is obviously far more likely in international adoption, but not limited to it.
Most children adopted internationally are not actually orphans, but their parents have given them up because they can't afford them
Quote:
The language difference is also a factor, in that the father may not be able to communicate with his son in the future. Which again, is far more likely in international adoption, but not limited to it.
The language barrier is a huge factor in Intl. adoption. In Russia, I believe, the average age of the children being sent to Western nations is 18mos to 2 years and speak Russian.
Although I totally see your point, that's really close to the way most International adoptions work. If you are adopting from Ukraine, you are approved to travel there after sending them a dossier. When you get there, you are shown as many photo albums as you care to look at. You pick the kids you want to meet from the albums, travel to that orphanage, meet as many kids as you want, then pick one.
And then you can just leave? I thought there was a whole process: repeated visits and stays in-country, that sort of thing. What stops child prostitute rings from scooping up kids by the truckload?
Quote:
That I didn't know. I thought she gave 3mil towards the running of the current orphanages. I don't know how I feel about that aspect. Let me look into it.
I re-read the original Time article, and it's not the orphanage that's Kabblahed up, but a care center affiliated with the orphanage.
Still pretty gross, imo, and not exactly culturally sensitive.
Quote:
No other country that I know of, that allows Intl. adoption, has a residency requirement. Some countries require the children not be allowed to be adopted by foreginers until they have been in the orphange for some period of time, up to a year. I think that's a terrible idea considering the development infants go through in the first year that can be helped or hindered by their environment.
That's so weird. I don't see any advantage in that at all. It seems to me the point of delays and residency/visitation requirements should be to vet the adopters, not put the kid on trial.
And then you can just leave? I thought there was a whole process: repeated visits and stays in-country, that sort of thing.
There are usually two required short visits/stays or one long one. Total is less than 6 weeks. However, you can pay for waiver of the waiting period. Some countries allow you to hire an escort to fly your child to you so you don't have to go back.
Quote:
What stops child prostitute rings from scooping up kids by the truckload?
The Dossier process. They have quite a few requirements, including that all those adopting go through whatever homestudy etc. required where they live before they are approved to travel and a shitload of money. For all we know quite a few E.European kids are now child prostitutes because the ring bribed one or more corrupt official.
Quote:
That's so weird. I don't see any advantage in that at all. It seems to me the point of delays and residency/visitation requirements should be to vet the adopters, not put the kid on trial.
Supposedly it's to allow citizens "first crack" at adopting..unfortunately the culture in many of these countries frowns on adoption. Mostly it's to make the governments look like they give a flying fuck about their kids, from what I can tell, a political facade of concern.
For the record, I think International adoption has many possible benefits, at least for the children who are removed from seemingly horrible conditions, BUT the corruption and desperation of many of these governments as well as the desperation and unthoughtfulness of many adoptive parents makes the process ethically questionable in too many instances.
Some countries, namely Russia, are sending thousands of kids out via International adoption while exhorting citizens to have more children because of their declining population. I even heard talk of them subsidizing families for having second and third children. Those susbsidies would be better spent helping families keep and feed their children. Bulgaria at one time was more or less rounding up the Roma kids to offer for foreign adoption...a stealthy form of ethnic cleansing (I think they have closed their Intl adoption program due to political pressure).When I was researching Ukrainian adoptions, I came across a list of all the officials I would be expected to give gifts to, and the suggested value of each gift.
Guatemala is currently very popular, but I have heard nasty rumors about how they get these kids to place, like government kidnappings. They also just happen to be one of the most expensive countries to adopt from, I think the govt gets around 30k for each child.
The only country I would currently consider adopting from is China, because those girls are literally abandoned in the streets, because it is illegal to relinquish a child for adoption, and the culture favors boys on top of government limitations on number of children (I think 1 child in urban areas, 2 in semi-rural and 3 in rural but may be wrong). Some percentage of rural girl babies are thought to be simply drowned and buried in fields, so being "left to be found" is preferable.
It looks like China tops the list of countries US citizens adopt from, Shea. All of the African babies combined don't add up to a tenth of the number adopted from China, and there are millions of AIDS orphans all over the continent whose parents both died young.
To the extent that Madonna's actions bring some much-needed attention to the plight of orphans in Africa, that has to be seen as a good thing, I suppose.
It looks like China tops the list of countries US citizens adopt from, Shea. All of the African babies combined don't add up to a tenth of the number adopted from China, and there are millions of AIDS orphans all over the continent whose parents both died young.
To the extent that Madonna's actions bring some much-needed attention to the plight of orphans in Africa, that has to be seen as a good thing, I suppose.
Yes, there is a huge plight of AIDS orphans, but I wonder if many countries are not opening up to International adoption, or make stringent requirements to dissuade people for some reason?
You need to get you an African baby, they're the hot new accessory this season. And the good news is that they're black, so they'll go with most any outfit.
I don't think I will adopt again. Hell, even a private domestic adoption has been a total nightmare for me, emotionally and due to bureacracy. We JUST got our court date for finalization, January 31st. Cade will already be a year old before he becomes a legal entity. I had to spend an hour on the phone with the IRS to figure out how to claim him as a dependent for this year.
I am not doing this again, I just can't stomach it. If anything we will become foster parents, and possibly adopt from there. The state does everything for you in that situation, and no sticky ethics and weighing of personal values.
Jolie is adopting a child from India and says she would like to adopt a child from every nation. I guess United Colours from Benetton are back in fashion.
Forgive me my cynicism, but this strikes me as kids from third world nations are like the new celebrity fashion accessory. They're good for business, good for publicity, easy care (that's what nannies are for!) and great for rich and powerful egos. Even altruism can be incredibly selfish.
Like others have said - if you really want to help, use your wealth and influence to help raise the plight of third world children in ways that benefit them in their own homes and cultures, if you can. Build schools, hospitals, homes; pay the salary of a couple of paedeatricians, or teachers or something. Get behind Trade Aid and Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders or Habitat For Humanity or something. Or doesn't that get enough media attention and fawning?
Damn, I'm a cynic! But after years of those fucking egotistical, manipulative wankers Bono and Sir Bob, I have to question these gals' real values and where they're really at with all this adoption thing.
__________________
“Passion makes the world go round. Love just makes it a safer place.”
International Adoption: Spotlight Madonna
Linear Mode
