Comments on: Hugh Jackman Defends Madonna's Malawian Adoption

By: CelebBabyLover

CelebBabyLover — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:06:34 +0000

Erica- You have a point. However, it could also be that the custody arrangment between her and Guy for Rocco and David and her and Carlos Leon for Lourdes doesn’t really allow her to live in Malawi.

By: Erica

Erica — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:54:47 +0000

Hmm I disagree CelebBabyLover. Madonna is in the unique and fortunate position to be 100% financially stable–she works solely because she wants to and there’s nothing wrong with that. Aside from contracted appearances, she could absolutely set up a home base in Malawi, especially since the 18 month residency requirement does not have to be consecutive. If she’s began staying there 5-6 months out of the year beginning in 2007 she’d probably be able to bring Mercy home within this year. She took a huge risk by trying to circumvent that requirement and the denial of her bid was the consequence. If average people can somehow make the 18 month residency work, surely she could’ve found a way considering the sacrifice would mean gaining a child.

By: XOXO

XOXO — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:35:55 +0000

Thanks for the explanation noam

By: cb

cb — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:06:50 +0000

I think people should be permitted to adopt children if they want to. If they can provide a better life for the child then why say no.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:40:43 +0000

Honestly, the cost and restrictions on adoption are saddening. I would *love* to adopt! Unfortunately, my insurance will cover the thousands of dollars it costs for our infertility specialist, meds, treatments, pregnancy, and delivery at nearly 100%. Meanwhile adoption would be $20,000+ out of pocket. It doesn’t seen quite right.

By: lawgirl

lawgirl — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:28:45 +0000

The issue of whether or not Madonna is engaged in a publicity stunt to adopt is irrelevant. I think that the recent adoption attempts by Madonna seem to indicate that she believes she is either above the law or can circumvent the law through money or status. I am impressed with the judge’s ruling on residency in the first instance. I wouldn’t doubt a lot of money changed hands after hearing reports that she was virtually guaranteed that the adoption would go through by government officials before the case was heard. If she truly did suppose that the residency requirement that every other Malawian must comply with could be waived for her , than this was indeed arrogant. Additionally, her behavior while she was in Malawi further hinted at arrogance and privilege – chartering a private plane so that she wouldn’t have to make a 3 hour drive with the rest of her entourage, flying in expensive bottles of alcohol for dinner, and flying in a personal trainer is just not a culturally sensitive thing to do in that sort of situation. I hope that the original ruling has humbled her somewhat even if the appeal does go through and for some reason she does qualify as a “resident.”

By: CelebBabyLover

CelebBabyLover — Thu, 07 May 2009 05:21:43 +0000

Jaime- Baby mills? OMG, that’s absolutly HORRIBLE! And I thought puppy mills were bad (still do, but baby mills sound even worse!)!

Erica- She’d probably like to, but I’m guessing that her career prevents her from doing so. She cannot reasonably live in Malawi for nearly 2 years and still do her job.

Alyssa- Exactly. That’s also one of the main reasons Angelina and Brad adopted Pax- they wanted Maddox to have a sibling that shares his culture and race (true, Mad was adopted from Cambodia and Pax from Vietnam…But those two countries are right next door to each other, so they have a lot in common!). Most likely they will eventually adopt an African girl for Zee as well.

Anyway, Mercy apparently had a birthday within the past few months, as PEOPLE now lists her age as 4 rather than 3.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:13:53 +0000

I don’t think it’s a stunt at all. She wants David to have a sibling with the same heritage and the child is about his age as well. This is a child she met when she was only a baby, so she probably has some attachment to her.

Many children around the world, even in the US, have at least one living family member, but that doesn’t mean they can or will take care of that child, so the child is put up for adoption.

Madonna could just show up for a picture, pat some child on the head for a photo op, and leave. Maybe donate to one pet cause and get on with things.

She doesn’t need to create a non-profit foundation and work to save, feed, clothe, and educate thousands of children for years while pouring in millions of dollars. Nor does she have to make the life long commitment of adopting a child. All of that takes far too much dedication and effort, if your heart isn’t in it, then it’s not something you are going to pursue. She has gotten probably 100 times more negative publicity and personal attacks than any praise or even simple approval.

I believe her heart is in it, whether that fits into the persona or preconceived notion we have of her or not is whole different deal.

By: Erica

Erica — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:02:02 +0000

Although I completely understand why adoption laws have to be strict, it is still sad when you think about the tens of thousands of children without any family, who are being raised in orphanages when people are literally on waiting lists to adopt a child. I just read something earlier which talked about how it’s becoming a lot harder for single parents to adopt, which is disheartening to hear. I’m only 23 now and not financially/emotionally ready to be a parent, but it’s been a dream of mine from childhood to adopt when I am ready. Hopefully these countries will be able to streamline the process a bit without sacrificing the safety and well-being of the kids involved.

As for Madonna…I still don’t see why she didn’t immediately set up a residence in Malawi considering how she almost lost her bid to adopt David for not meeting this regulation, especially once she decided to adopt from the country again.

By: noam

noam — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:49:45 +0000

XOXO: adoption is complicated on several fronts. first off, it must be made absolutely certain that the child is avaliable for adoption. this means either there is no living family or there is living family, and they sign a legal document saying they are unable to care for the child and knowingly give him to the state. then, when a prospective parent shows interest, it must be made absolutely certain that the individual/couple are fit. this is not, as popularly assumed, used to make sure the prospective parents are not actually rapists/pedophiles/etc, though that is also checked out. the background check is to make sure the child is entering a stable environment.this includes financal and emotional security. because many children suffer from emotional, behavioral, or physical problems, the prospective parents usually have to undergo training to make sure they can handle it. some areas also require family therapy, especially if there are already children in the home. finally, things get complicated if it is an international adoption and the destination country has quotas. for example, the united states releases at the beginning of each year how many individuals from countries that they are planning on allowing into the country. while adopted children don’t always fall into those quotas, they sometimes can. so, if you are adopting a child from chile, and there is only an allotted 2000 people from chile allowed to emigrate to the us during a calendar, you have to make sure your paperwork is filed as soon as possible so there is still a spot. also, you have to work with the country of origin to make sure the paperwork is done properly there as well.