Madonna gets her way....Baby Mercy is hers.

[whooosh]

Feel so frustrated for all those going through the adoption process who don't have the cash "big guns" she has.

i am shocked by the allegations of "buying" children and of child trafficking on this thread.

i hope that these posters will pass all the evidence they have to the proper authorities.

Perfect game - of course they've been waved because of her money - they said as much themselves! They changed the ruling because of the amount of money she's poured into Malawi - so the money won it for her.

And you may call it racist - but hey that must mean my DH is a racist too as he said that she'd paid her way through it and it was determined by that.

Sad to say that that sort of thing DOES happen - we used money ourselves 3yrs ago when we were caught with more cash on us that we were supposed to............

"But the appeals court said the star's commitment to helping disadvantaged children had not been considered. "

ie - how much cash she'd thrown into the country - if she was average Joe Bloggs on the street that could only afford to pay £20 a month to sponsor a child in Malawi and then decided they wanted to adopt you can bet your bottom dollar they would be turned down.

I think it's vile that she can take a child whose family don't want to give her up

What about her attachments, he love towards her own family...it's like sending a child to boarding school at 4yo but never being able to visit. Shocking, imo Madonna is a selfish woman for doing this.

I think your accusation of racism is out of order Perfect.
The fact is that Madonna was turned down the first time because the judge was concerned this would set a precedent for people to be allowed to take Malawian children out of the country if they had enough money.

I think that's an issue worth discussing.

Most people seem concerned that a child will be taken away from everything it knows and thrust into the media whirlwind. I think that's far from racist.

It's hard to make judgements in individual cases, as I'm sue Madonna will be a good mother to Mercy and her siblings and I think she'll have lots of opportunities.
However, generally I have serious reservations about transracial adoptions, particularly intercountry adoptions. I think it is far from ideal for children to be adopted away from their country, people and culture and ifvpeople want to help, then support aclocal familyvto care for them.

What always amazes me about this debate is that Madonna is cast as a baddie and Angelina Jolie (who's done more inter-country adoptions and has just as much money) as a goodie. How so? Does AJ just have better PR?

*NB I appreciate this a slight sidetrack, but still ...

Oh wahwah, you do talk tosh!

have to agree wahwah is talking tosh. Nothing wrong with transracial adoptions. It's the manner that this has occurred in that I'm not happy about. Plus this talk of "oh a sibling for David" riles me somewhat - as David already has 2 siblings.

Whoa. Before everyone jumps on Wahwah, have you actually spoken to/ read anything by a transracial/transnational adoptee?

As there are a lot of them speaking out in the US now, and a lot of them do have valid criticisms to make. However, they are frequently silenced with "You should be grateful".

Adoption is never going to be all fairycakes. There are things wrong with the system and transnational adoptions are particularly open to abuse. Some of what goes on is little better then human traffiking.

of course intercountry adoptions are not ideal. any more than abortion or divorce is ideal.

but we live in a world where people are not perfect and don't always make the best or wisest choices.

abortion is a compassionate option for women with unwanted pregnancies. the alternative is illegal abortions and woman dying

divorce is a legal recognition that soemtimes marraiges dont work.

we dont force women to have children they dont want or to stay in marriages that are over.

why should we force children to stay in institions when there are families who can offer them a loving home because some people dont want more black kids in " their " country?

of course the ideal would be for every child to be born into a loving family who can meet their needs

then the next "ideal" would be that they are cared for by their extended family. or adopted within their own country.

but ALL countries that i know who allow intercountry adoptions only do so when all attempts to place the children in country have failed. basically, "foreigners" get to adopt the children that the locals don't want.

so you can have all the "reservations" you like about whether or not intercountry adoption is " a good thing" . But its better FOR THE CHILD than growing up in an orphanage, going to live on the streets as a sex worker at 15 and dying in their 20s.

Like other posters, I do wonder about all the vitriol on this thread and elsewhere, directed at a white woman adopting a black child.Is it just sleb bashing or soemthing else?

gothanne - if you have evidence of human trafficking in internationl adoptions then you MUST pass this to the police

my issue is not with a white woman adopting a black child - my issue is the manner in which this has all happened.

she already shuttles her children between nannies across continents she does she need another baby

kinder to have Mercy raised in Malawi with a another family and financially support that.visit if she wishes

i didnt mean you FAQ,

i also object to the assumption that all foreign courts/ social services/ adoption agencies must be corrupt and allow child trafikking. while British ones are so perfect of course, well, because they are British

"why should we force children to stay in institions when there are families who can offer them a loving home because some people dont want more black kids in " their " country?"

What on earth are you talking about? No one has mentioned the colour of the child's skin.

I think your accusations of racism are lazy thinking and I am offended.

Personally I feel that this child's family have rights too. And many organisations within and outwith Malawi have expressed disquiet at the court's decision.

You could assume that a rich white woman adopting a poor black child would be giving it a 'better life' albeit with a different name, different religion and little chance to see their family, is also a racist point of view.

It's an interesting ethical debate not helped by someone accusing people of racism.

Kristina - like it or not corruption is rife across many parts of Africa - Malawi being no exception. It's not racist - it's a fact - and yes of course there is corruption, perhaps (well hopefully!) not on the same scale in the UK.

hurrah, one less child growing up in an institution. One more child growing up in a family.

Every child has the right to a family life - thats what the Hague convention says. Thats what sensible human beings have decided.

If anything happend to me I would rather DS went to almost anyone who would care about him whoever they were, whatever their lifestyle than he returned to the institution which could have been his for life where he owned nothing of his own, no-one cared if he walked, or talked on time, or if he was good at singing or football. No-one read him bedtime stories or kissed his cuts better. No-one would fight his school if he needed help or would work on his self confidence. They were very kind but his carers changed every 6 months and he wasn't the most important thing in their life. He wasn't the most important thing in anyone's life.

Whatever my failings as a parent - and yes I use childcare and I'm so far short of being perfect that it makes me want to weep, he now has a family which will be his forever. He is the most important thing in my life and that is the minimum every child deserves.

Please don't kid yourself that people are falling over themselves to bribe officials with large amounts of money to get these children, the reality from my own experience is that few people want children over 2 and are certianly not prepared to bribe anyone to get one, orphanges around the world (including the care system in the UK) are full of children over 2 who can't find families; few people want non white boys over one and certainly wouldn't bribe anyone for them as orphanages around the world are...; there is a possibility that caucasian and asian girls under 18 months are in short enough supply to possibly have some kind of underhand money changing hands. But in my experience bribery most commonly showed itself at the paperwork stage - try to expedite passports etc and not directly related to the adoption. Most of these children have been in institutions for some time - please don't pretend that people are queueing up offering all and sundry money to adopt them.

The vast majority of money changing hands for babies is for far less salubrious reasons than adoption.

People become parents for all sorts of reasons - selfish ones of self fulfillment, providing a sibling, getting benefits, wanting a different sex child, feeling your family isn't complete. I doubt Madonna's reason is particularly out of the ordinary.

Perhaps she would have done better to give a tiny percentage of the 12 million to Mercy's relatives (which includes her Grandmother), so that they could have looked after her? Or alternatively come up with some way for the child to have remained in her own country?

I'm with the childrens charities and organisations who have expressed real concern at this - but then, doesn't money usually talk?

"ifvpeople want to help, then support aclocal familyvto care for them"

But most people don't want to sponsor a child they want to be a parent, that may be selfish but its true and the drive to nurture is strong.

PErsonally I agree that intercountry adoption is fraught with difficulties for a child and needs to be handled sensitively. Tahnkfully there have been substantial changes to adoption pratcices since the 50's/60's/70's which produced must of the back lash against intercountry/interracial adoption. It still isn't the ideal solution, the ideal solution is to stay with your birth family in your brth country, the next choice would be to stay with an adoptive family in your birth country. The truth is that for the majopirty of children that has ceased to be a possibility way before any adoptive parent comes into the mix.

I'm not sure that paying a local family to care for a child is a satisfactory solution either - how horrible to feel that your family is only caring for you because someone is paying you to.

I'd also be startled in the extreme these days to hear any intercountry adotpive paretns express the view that their child should feel "lucky" to have them. I constantly feel lucky and privileged to have my lovely boy in my life and he will grow up in no doubt that it wa me that was lucky to have him not the other way around.

I'd be amazed for any parent (adoptive or not) to feel any differently (unless they're somehow stuck in the 1950's)

just out of interest - is it only children that are adopted who shouldn't be allowed to leave their country of birth or is this something we feel should apply to any child? At what age is it OK or with how many of their family should they emigrate with before it should be made illegal.

EG is it OK if they emigrate with several people but not if they only emigrate with one. WHta if they emigrate with parents who intend to immerse themselves in their new culture (as often happens in america) - should that be allowed? Or in the best interest of the child should it be banned?

The thing is IFAICS the child was able to have clean water, food etc and the limited attention of her father and grandmother, this isn't a starving child at all and makes a mockery of the countries laws.

sorry what is the relevance that she wasn't starving? I might have missed something here. most children (the world over) are relinquished because they can't be cared for not becasue of lack of food. Most mothers would starve themselves before they gave their child up.

Or was there some other reason for the starving reference?

And Malawi has yet to ratify the Hague International guidelines for Intercountry adoptions.

If that was at me Kewcumber thenn it was in response to an earlier poster who mentioned it.

Mercy's mother died from Birth complications and her grandmother was unable to fully care for her which is the reason she was in the orphanage, not because she doesn't have family but because they had limited resources but plenty of love and knew in the orphanage her needs would be met, that to me says they cared.