I can't believe she will be able to adopt

[2chocolateshoes]

poor child

And if I decided I wanted to adopt a child from a local but less well off family I wouldn't be allowed to just by saying I'd be able to give the kid a better lifestyle.

She could have gone and found a kid in some deprived part of London and offered to give that child a better life and offered the parents a load of money to put the kid up for adoption.

Why is it any different just because its a child from Malawi? Same principles and can you imagine the outcry!

'would be a lot better if Madonna cared that much she gave some of her huge fortune to enable their natural mothers to care for their children. ' I totally agree.

This is my understanding (and I don't know Madonna either ). Madonna first saw the child, Mercy, when she was adopting David and expressed an interest in adopting her. However, the adoption of David was only finalised 6 months ago so she would not have been able to adopt Mercy before that, however, she clearly made a commitment to her that she is following through. This little girl has been in the orphanage for four years and now her uncles are opposing the adoption! Similar to David's birth father who made a song and dance about it but then it turned out - but was not widely reported - that he was engaged to another woman who was pregnant with his child.

Madonna will have undergone a homestudy in either the US or UK in order to adopt Mercy - she would be breaking the law if she hadn't.

It's all very well romantising about a child's birth culture but what if it is a culture of poverty, deprivation and inequality?

And sponsorship which enables a child to be fed and educated cannot take the place of having a family. Mercy is going to have a mum, an older sister and two brothers. IMO that's a cause for rejoicing. But then again I do have a DD adopted from China so I know what I'm talking about.

I also have experience of a child adopted from abroad, and this is precisely why I am a little concerned about Madonna as an adoptive parent. She may be a lovely person, not saying she isn't, but the truth is that it is a big thing particularly for an older child to be moved from her culture and put into a new family. It's not like having a biological child; it needs an immense amount of input from the new parent to help the child adjust and bond, and it is hard to see how Madonna, who spends a lot of time touring, will be able to provide that.

I really do not believe that an ordinary person without money who lived her life and had so many other commitments would pass a home test.

People are not opposing the principle of adoption itself- at least I'm not- it's more the fact that rich and famous adopters don't seem to be following the usual guidelines. And they should.

Do you all think the same about Angelina Jolie?

but do we actually know that she hasn't undergone home studies etc?

The thing with celebrities who adopt, is that we only hear about it as the child is coming home with them, so it almost seems like "celeb x decided on Monday that she wanted to adopt, and a baby was flown to her on demand." whereas it's entirely possible that they have actually gone through all the relevant processes in order to adopt, but if the tabloids reported on all that they had to go through, it wouldn't be as sensational as "madonna is adopting a baby now."

It's also entirely possible that she is adopting this child through the US, as the criteria are much less stringent over there than here, and practically anyone can adopt.

well I don't know about the rules in malawi tbh, but the same could be said of anyone who adopts from abroad.

Generally adopting from abroad is something that divides opinions, with some feelings that it is wrong to remove a child from their culture and heritage, and others feeling that a life with a foreign couple is better than a life in an orphanage.

As for the sick and the disabled and the poor in the US/UK, there is already a higher chance of them being adopted, whereas once you end up in an orphanage in a third world country that's it. No local is going to adopt you, so your best bet is a foreigner.

Wonder whether the children will be writing searing accounts of their life with Madonna once they are grown up, along the lines of 'Mommie Dearest' by Joan Crawford's adopted daughter?

Sorry - 'Raising Malawi'? The woman has a bloody God complex.

"It's all very well romantising about a child's birth culture but what if it is a culture of poverty, deprivation and inequality?
"

But poverty, deprivation and inequality in who's eyes - only when compared to the West.

Mercy wouldn't have spent her whole life in an orphanage - she'd have gone to her Grandma when she was 6. Her Grandma and uncles appear to be very concerned about the whole thing and say they feel pressured by Government officials. They want Madonna to agree to Mercy keeping in touch and coming back to live after she's finished her education. Obviously that's not going to happen. She promised the same thing to David's father and he's very unhappy that promises haven't been kept. They're also worried about her not been brought up as a Christian, something I imagine is very imprtant to them. I know a lot of Ugandans if they were given a choice between living in poverty and been a Christian or having lots of money but having to study Kabbulah would tae the poverty option. I had to go to church for one hour every morning when I was in Uganda, it would have been considered very odd if I hadn't. They take their religion very seriously.

By LilyBolero on Tue 31-Mar-09 08:54:45
Do you all think the same about Angelina Jolie?

yes I do

Me too I'm afraid.

These aren't altruistic benevolent acts - they are self aggrandising and patently selfish.

Angelina's adoptions disturb me even more than Madonna's - she just appears to 'collect' children and only good looking ones at that.

The way she adopted Zahara was shocking. Insisting she was an orphan when she wasn't and had a living mother.

Angelina always strikes me as an incredibly fucked up individual and it's disturbing that she has been allowed to adopt so many children and will probably continue to do so.

I feel very uneasy about this too. And I am not generally a big Madonna basher. It was her arrogance when the BBC reporter shouted the question, "Seriously Madonna, people have strong reservations about what you are doing." And she shouted out "none of your business."

Why does she need to do this, to take a girl home, as if she is taking a pebble back from a beach holiday.

If I were her, worth £500 million or whatever, I'd just do a Bill & Melinda Gates and set up a foundation to solve Malawi's whole orphan and HIV crisis, with families supported to keep children at home.

Just arriving with your other kids then picking off one (pretty) girl child, is almost vampiric somehow.

I feel deeply uneasy about this. As a starting point I'd have thought the aim would always be to ensure a child is brought up in an environment and manner which respected its heritage, culture and background as far as possible - clearly this doesn't mean keeping them in grinding poverty or abject deprivation if that is the only alternative but here I don't think it is. And particularly given Madonna's resources I absolutely don't think it is.

For example, I sponsor a little girl through SOS Children's Villages - kids in these villages are raised in family units of about 10-12 with a foster mother which runs each home, basically throughout her life - as each child grows, they leave the home when they're ready but remain in touch with their foster mother for the rest of their lives. These are brilliant institutions, exist in many countries and ensure that each child has a family and the resources to have the best possible life. If Madonna really cared about giving this little girl (and many others) the best possible life, rather than giving herself a new accessory, she could very easily built several of these villages herself.

It always amazes me that people are so high-horse about adoption, but not about having kids naturally.

In RL and particularly on here, is is sacreligious almost to suggest that some people shouldn't have kids, or shouldn't have them in the particular circumstances that they are in right now.

Try asking anybody here 'Ok but why did you have three kids then' or something and prepare for a mauling. The party line is: have as many as you want, for whatever reason that you want and sod anybody else's opinion.

But if it's adoption, only the best, ideal, most perfect and wonderful people may apply.

I agree with wannabe who said we don't know the whole story here. How do we know that Madonna just turned up, picked an attractive child, and wrote a cheque? Presumably the adoption process is mostly private, so why would we know?

I wouldn't dare come on here and say 'you've just broken up with a guy, you travel a lot, and you're a bit long in the tooth. Maybe you shouldn't have that child you yearn for?'. I'd be lectured about all a child needs is love, and that anybody can do a good job if they have the right support. So why can't Madonna have the child she yearns for - why is adoption different?

ps I don't get the bit about her doing it for selfish reasons. Isn't that why all adoptions take place, ie because the adopting parents want a child?

I've never heard anybody discuss adoption in terms of an altruistic act or charity to the child. People have kids, naturally or through adoption, because they themselves want kids. It is technically 'selfish' either way, though of course nobody would reasonably describe it as such. It's considered natural to want kids.

pps! (sorry, keep remembering points!).

Somebody expressed surprise that Lourdes looks so mature. I thought the same thing too. What does this tell us? It tells us that Lourdes is not growing up in public, followed everywhere by paps. If she was, we'd know how old she looks and how tall she is.

Madonna's money can buy a lot, and it can buy privacy. Loads of rich and famous people manage to keep their children's lives private. Even the Beckhams - their kids could walk past me and I wouldn't recognise them.

Hard to tell just by looking but Lourdes looks like a confident young woman to me.

MorrisZapp you think the Beckhams keep their kids private? !

MorrisZapp But she wouldn't be able to have a "natural" child as she is 50.

I think the Beckhams keep their kids much more private then they keep themselves. I know every pore of that pair's faces, having been bombarded with images of them for the past decade. But I couldn't pick their kids out of a line up.

And Madonna is 50 - so what? Women only a few years younger do have natural births.

My point was, why is it ok to have natural kids in any number of less than ideal circumstances, but if it's an adoption, everything has to be flawlessly perfect?

Well, personally I wish an awful lot of people who had natural children wouldn't.

When a child is in the care system it's because they've had the most god awful life and have been horribly neglected and (often) abused.

Therefore, making sure that potential adopters are perfect and will not be yet another adult that lets this poor kid down is esssential.

Using that as a guideline Madonna would never be allowed to adopt in this country. So why is it good enough for an African child?