SueJonez: Thank you for trying. It's dispiriting isn't it? I'm still sufficiently wearied after the Madonna debacle that I don't have the energy to rehearse the arguments again.
Actually, I've just realised that I don't have to. Thanks to the handy Mumsnet Search function, I can copy and paste everything I said last time around about Madonna's adoption of David and quietly walk away from this thread.
Why one shouldn't confuse adoption with charity
- Adoption and charity are two entirely unrelated issues and it's unhelpful to conflate them. You adopt a child because you want (1) to be a parent to a child and, given all the circumstances, this is your best route to parenthood (2) to parent that child perhaps because you have an emotional, moral or even family connection with the child or (3) to help a child or perhaps that child. For most inter-country adoptive parents it's the first motive and that is generally considered by English adoption social workers as the best motive to adopt.
- Adoption should not be confused with charity; clearly if you want to help an orphanage, a community, a country or even a whole continent, then inter-country adoption is unlikely to be the most effective way to do it. Many inter-country adoptive parents do go on to become involved in charitable activities in the birth countries of their children, but there is no reason why they should be expected to do so beyond re-inforcing for their children the importance of and connection to their birth-country.
Why inter-country adoption might be the outcome for a child
Inter-country adoption is sometimes, only sometimes, the best solution for an individual child who would otherwise grow up without a family. It all depends on the circumstances. When inter-country adoption works properly, the adoptive parents' motives and the child's best interests are aligned and it's a great outcome for child and adoptive parents.
It isn't just about healthcare, education, basic necessities and the opportunity to make some life choices, although you can't imagine how much those matter until you haven't got them, it's about belonging to a family. It's about having the enduring and unconditional love of a parent(s). Would it be better for the child to remain in its birth country? Of course, but whilst adoption happens all the time in developing countries, unofficially amongst extended family members or villagers, if a child is in an orphanage, he or she is very unlikely to find a family locally. And yes, it is indeed bloody unlucky to lose one's birth family and be taken from one's country, but if I had to choose between life in an orphanage in my birth country and life in a foreign family, I would choose family life. But I wouldn't think that I was 'lucky' to have just those options.
Whether Madonna should have adopted David?
So should Madge adopt? Why not if she is a suitable adoptive parent (don't know what the deal is with her homestudy and DFES approvals!) and her motivation is the right one to parent a child who is genuinely without a parent who is able or willing to do so.
Whether Madonna should have adopted this little boy depends entirely on the circumstances. Was the boy properly 'available' for adoption, did the father give full and informed consent, can Madonna and Guy give this child the special care, long-term security and connection with his birth country that he needs? Who knows? Given the scant information available and the generally unreliable resources (Daily Mail anyone?), I'm not sure speculation is particularly useful. And for the record, I think Madonna and Guy are right in giving no comment and no information and I hope they continue to do so. The circumstances of this adoption are or should be confidential to the child.
Why it is simply impractical to see giving money to families who *can't support their children as an alternative to adoption
Say a child is in an orphanage, she is there because her extended family is or says it is unable to afford to look after her. As an adoptive parent I want to adopt her. But I don't, I make a 20 year commitment to the family and move on to the next child. That child also happens to be there for reasons of poverty. I make another 20 year commitment and move on. I'm a wealthy Westerner and poverty is the main ostensible reason these children are in the orphanage, so I just keep paying. I'm now beginning to run out of money and have noticed a very long queue of parents placing children in the orphanage in the hopes that they too will get 20 years' financial support from prospective adoptive parents. So I find a child without any extended family and adopt it. Word gets around and every adoptive parent after me asks not to be allocated a child who is available for adoption for reasons of poverty. So those that are in the orphanage for reasons of poverty stay there.
I'm not saying that I don't agree with your immediate inclination to pay money to the family so that they can keep the child, but the ramifications of that happening more than occasionally are not straight forward.