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.

well the USA only ratified it last year - does that mean all adoptions before then in the US were immoral?

I don't think that it's international adoption which is being criticised, it is the way that this one has been done, in the face of objections from the child's family and the waiver of certain rules for madonna.

I find it frustrating that here is a woman capable of improving so many lives in Malawi but she seems to want a 'trophy' in return. Maybe I'm wrong.

But like you say Kewcumber the world isn't perfect and this child will have a better life in some respects.

Uh, hello boy do you add words not there.

I didn't say anything except they have yet to ratify a set of guidelines aimed at protecting children.

I was cheering your first post, Kew, until you wrote

"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"

The above comment dismayed me. My daughter is Asian and was under 18 months of age when we adopted her in China. They are not in "short supply" (what a distasteful choice of words) and I am as confident as you can be about your adoption that there was no "underhand money changing hands".

She had as much right to be adopted as your boy did and has as much right to a loving family as any other child in the world.

Just because she was very young and very beautiful doesn't make her a commodity.

the majority of children in "orphanages" around the world have family somewhere. This case isn;t substantially different.

PArt of the reason I understand that Mercy was placed in an institution was because her mother was beleived to be a witch. I think it was unlikely she would ever have been able to return home.

I don't doubt her grandmother cared. Why would she not, if she is any kind of normal person.

Sadly, that isn't a good enough reason to consign a child to a life in an institution.

EVen in the UK, the fact that birth parents or family "cared" for the child wouldn't be enough to stop a child being adopted

I think that it's great for Mercy - she will have so many priveledges and I do think that Madonna has a vital close connection with her.

Kewcumber Mercy's birth mother died from post birth complications not from being a witch.

apologies if it came out wrongperfect gangofthree in my haste.

China has an excellent record of "clean" adoptions, I was actually thinking of other countries where it is no possible to adopt from. And even then the limited information I have points to it being a low scale problem.

My point was to accpet that there is bribery in the world of adoption in many countries (I have seen it with my own eyes), it would be foolish to deny it. However in my experience it is generally far more driven my the need to get paperwork done than the less well informed assumption that people are somehow buying babies.

More than anything, this story makes me sad that there are so many children brought up in care in this country (and most other Western countries) because there are not enough enough prospective adopters of the 'right' ethnicity

Yes I know that Matnanplus! I didn;t suggest that she died form being a witch (which I don;t believe in anyway) - I said part of the reason that she was placed in the institution was that her mother was beleived to have been a witch (of course she wasn;t) and it was impossible for her to have a safe upbringing in her village.

If you're interested the seriousness of being accused of witchcraft here [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/witch-hunt-africas-hidden-war-on-women-1642907.html]

"woman capable of improving so many lives in Malawi" - she does - Raising Malawi is predominantly funded by Madonna

so is the general publics view that all the children in institutions around the world are predominantly orphans then and Madonna happened to be unlucky picking the two children who had living relatives?

The truth is that the majoirty of childrne in institutions have living relatives who, for various reasons, never visit them. Until it seems Madonna tries to adopt them.

Most countries (I'm not sure about Malawi) have a rule that if the child is visited by a close memeber of family at all (eg perhaps one or twice a year) they are not eligible for adoption.

Its becoming a rant isn;t it . I'll get me coat and leave.

"Raising Malawi is predominantly funded by Madonna "

EXACTLY - and this is why she was allowed to bend the rules! So like it or not it was money orientated the decision to let her adopt!

Good points PerfectGang and Kewcumber. I hadn't thought of it from the adoptive parent's viewpoints (assume you're both adoptive parents)

The whole debate about whether inter racial adoption is a good thing or not, I think is irrelevant as it should be about what's in the best interests of a particular child.

So, the fact that the decision in Madonna's adoption was overturned based on the fact that she has contributed significantly to the countries orphanages is a bit

Either she is a suitable parent, or she isn't. Either it's in this child's best interests or it isn't. For instance, if this child doesn't have any extended family who could possibly have her at a later stage, and it's a temporary measure her being in an orphanage. I don't know

By all accounts, Madonna is a great mom, and I think her reasons for adopting another child are totally altruistic, and genuine.

It's OK, Kew, I get a little touchy when this subject comes up on MN .

Flame me or whatever but I think the whole thing is total crap.

Madonna gets what she wants.

She got another addition to her family.

I think it highly unlikely she would be approved for adoption in the UK.

She is 50
She is single
She leads a nomadic lifestyle (albeit a luxurious one)
She has recently experienced a major life event i.e. divorce
Her children are cared for by staff for long periods.
A non-sibling adoption has recently taken place.

This child has lost her birth parents. There is nothing more traumatic for a child. She is then placed in an institutions. She has now been removed from the only home she has known and all of her significant attachement figures. She is now going to be living with strangers in a country that is incredibly different from what she has known. She doesnt even understand the language spoken.

All this would be traumatic for any child. The vast majority of people who adopt from abroad would be expected to give up work or at least take prolonged leave to facilitate transition. The adopted child would very probably be an only child or much younger than any exsisting children.

What about her birth kids? They are going through an incredibly stressful experience. Their parents are divorcing FFS. Could the bloody woman not wait until the ink is dry on the decree absolute?

Adoption is not a simple, easy choice. Adopted children are NOT the same as birth children.

They come with a huge amount of baggage and this needs to be carefully unpacked. (scuse the metaphore).

We can all have views about transracial adoption, adopting children out of poverty etc but all I have learnt about any kind of adoption is telling me this situation is screwed up.

The whole racist thing is well weird though Perfect. Where the hell does that come from?

Great post, chegirl.

It bugs me the way people always throw around the 'support a family in a developing country rather than adopt' line.

You know why? Because I tried it. I supported a mother of 6 who was leaving her abusive ex so she could keep her children. Because I didn't want to create a situation where the children fantasised about being whisked away to a glamorous life (being adopted by dh and I), I channelled the money through a kindly 60 something year old lady. She is a trained psychologist and thought she would be able to navigate the mental situation.

And you know what happened? The children started asking her to take them away. She kept working on the angle of how they were all a family, they had to be together, their mother was doing such a good job, etc. Until the mother herself fell into the dependency role with the giver (she decided that she was a lesbian after all and would the lady like to take her as a lover please?) at which point the lady had to step away.

She helped sort out the material situation, but emotionally there is no question they were all damaged by the experience.

Dh and I decided that if we wanted to help again it would have to be through adoption. The reason being, this is the only situation where your commitment is as big as the recipients, if not bigger. Basically when you are just giving some money to someone in the third world you mean a lot more to them than they do to you. When you are adopting, your child means as much to you as you do to them, if not more (I say the latter because ds means a lot more to me than my parents ever did, much as I love them).

I am glad she won, now a couple more nannys will have jobs.

employ few more lackeys to carry cases for her and huge entourage

wow ib. I've read your post several times. Not sure I totally understand, but it isn't black and white (do not mean this racially...)

lol Ilove - I was thinking the same thing about that post.

Couldn't make head nor tail of it .

I have no qualms with transracial/national adoption, nor indeed do I have any qualms about sponsoring a child - I did the latter for many years before I could sadly no longer afford it.

What I have issues with is whether this case has been looked at from the right angle - ie "is this person the right person to adopt Mercy" rather than the sadly "look how much she's done" (read give in $$$'s)

Glad I wasn't the only one who didn't quite understand ib's post!

Again, no problems with transracial or national adoption in the right circumstances. I'm not sure that this is the right circumstance for Mercy though, and given that so many charities and organisations have expressed real concern at this, I'm puzzled as to why it's gone ahead.

Actually, I'm not puzzled at all. The tills were ringing loudly, weren't they.

you are right, chegirl. madonna would probably NOT get approved to adopt in here in the Uk at this point in her life

but she was approved to adopt under the Us system, which is totally different

just because the system is different from the Uk system doesnt mean its automatically corrupt. i know you are not saying that, but soem posters to this thread have stated that

eg "Madonna throws her money around and gets a child."

" hmm that you can apparently now legally acquire children through money"

" well it's good to know that rich people can just turn up and buy a child from a poor country....What happens to that child after it is bought is then obviously out of Malawi's hands. Child traffickers take note."

"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."

Just because people are about madonna's adoptions does not mean that its ok to say that those who adopt overseas have aquired their children through money or they are child traffkers. this is untrue and extremely offensive. IMO it is also racist, as these children are usually Asian, Chinese or black

These families live in OUR communities and their children go to school with OURS. please do not say these vile things about them unless you have evidence. if you have evidence, please go to the police