Sleb adoptions from Africa etc

why do you think this is what is happening?

L
xx

I've been thinking about posting this for a while.

I think intercountry adoption is a wonderful thing to do in a lot of circumstances, I think wealthy celebrities swooping into improverished countries and handpicking children is the antithesis of this.

I strongly doubt that Madonna (and Guy in regard to their adoption of David) were subject to months of homestudys, nor do I think they attended the normal obligatory training courses so IMHO they effectively bought him and she is doing the same thing again. I also think that choosing children who have either a parent or extended families who could raise them if they were given support is reprehensible. There are plenty of children who do not have living relatives who without being adopted face a life of institutional care.

I think Brangelina are hideously patronising when they bang on about wanting a rainbow family.

In case you hadn't guessed I think the whole thing stinks.

I'm not keen on children being whipped away from their cultural background and paraded on magazines as a celebrity accessory like a new handbag.

Well obviously I don't know this but as POD says I doubt very much they'll have gone through the same rigorous procedures as "normal" prospective adopters re matching them up with children...so what other basis would they be likely to go on? given they don't speak the same language, it's unlikely they'll have been able to engage with them in terms of their personality?

And I agree re Brangelina's "rainbow family" - <vom>

And is it just me who is (maybe reading too much into it) horrified that this child will be "a sister for David" surely he already has a sister and a brother in Lourdes and Rocco? Makes me shudder, it's like some sort of second class family, or like pets..............

I have mixed feelings.On one hand, if madonna/angelina/whoever want to have another child and have the opportunity and approval to adopt, then why isn't that just like any other person who wishes to add to their family? I can;'t agree with the view that they should use their money to help thousands of children in that country INSTEAD of adopting, the two things simply aren't comparable. Becoming a parent and using your wealth for charitable purposes are completely separate issues. If I wanted to adopt I wouldn't expect to be told that I should instead donate a percentage of my wages to a children's charity.

I would hope that anyone who adopts is givin the same vetting/checks etc. It is portrayed in the media that these celebs fly into a country of their choosing, grab a baby that takes their fancy and then pops off home, but of course we don;t know what other preparation etc goes on.

I'm not sure where I stand on international adoptions and removing children from their culture etc but undeniably these children will have better opportunities in a western country than in the orphanages they come from.

I struggle with this tbh. Part of me feels that it's indisputably a better life for the child, but equally part of it feels like exploitation of children, families and communities.

The fact that Madonna can do it when you or I probably couldn't aalso makes it feel like it's a financial transaction.

Is it the fault of a celebrity/rich person though, that they get treated differently to other people? There seems to be a feeling that what Madge is doing is intrinsically wrong, because of who she is. Whereas her reasons, to me seem valid - she is looking at an area where there are just so many orphans - who wouldn't want to help, if they could? Also, I though when she adopted david it was rpeorted at the time that she was also making donations to improve life/conditions for the orphans generally in Malawi?

L
xx

The whole Madonna adoption (specifically) just makes me feel physically sick. Isn't it amazing how this happens when she has got nothing else in the media except bad press re. her latest breakup?

It is quite obvious IMO that she hasn't been approved as a UK adopter for overseas as she:

A. would be unlikely to approved having just separated from her husband and have gone through a string of short term relationships.

B. her current lifestyle cannot be said to be condusive to supporting a child with attachment difficulties (most uk overseas adopters have to take at least 6months off work to appropriately bond with their child(ren) and get the therapy required for long term success of theplacement. )

C. wouldn't be allowed to adopt from malawi as it is not signed up for overseas adoptions and she is not malawian. As far as I know as the govenment there intends for malawian children to be raised by families in Malawi where possible and only grants orders where overseas adoption in the rare case that it woudl be better than being cared for there.

D. wouldn't have been able to adopt so quickly.

When an older child at church asked me if I had 'got on a plane to buy Amy (my DD)' it made me so angry because it shows how people like madonna and brangelina can skew people's impressions about what adoption means. I had to explain that adopted children aren't bought and most children adopted are from here in the uk. She also said that her mum had told her that 'you can adopt like madonna once you have your own children when it doesn't matter so much what happens to them'. And that really hurt because her mum is not a stupid person - just obviously reads nothing beyond sleb news.

magenta x

I stuggle too. In a way its almost like a modern day fairy tale- Orphan Annie being adopted by Daddy warbucks.

But i just don't get their justification- Angelina has been quoted a few times as saying "she just couldn't leave them there" because they were in squalid conditions, or ill. But how can you pluck one child from thousands in that situation? Surely if you want to help mankind you would be better off opening your own orpanage, or school, or lobbying, which I know Angelina does to some extent.

Then, who knows. Maybe you just see one child who pulls on your heart strings.

I'm also not comfortable with the fact that both Madonnas "adoptions" had familes, and were therefore not orphans. That to me stinks far more of buying a child than anything else.

I'm not suggesting Madonna should do that, I do think though that given David's father is alive and Mercy apparently has living extended family she could sponsor (for want of a better word) them and adopt a child who will otherwise be in care for the duration of their childhood.

International adoption is a very difficult process (we looked at it before we decided to adopt domestically). For the average person there can be years of preparation and red tape. There has also been a lot of studies recently about the benefit to children being brought up in a family who reflect their cultural hertiage which is why interracial adoption in UK tends to the last report option.

As well as the points already made, I also struggle with the idea that being a "celeb child" paraded and hounded in the way that the Jolie-Pitts and Ritchie-Ciccones seem to be is actually an ideal way for adopted (or indeed any) children to be raised.

I'm very uncomfortable with it too. I'm uncomfortable with taking children away from their cultural heritage, though I'm equally uncomfortable with the fact that that will almost certainly leave them in extreme poverty and with a vastly reduced life span.

Is it better for Madonna to take one child from abject poverty to extreme luxury when she could choose to spend the same amount on taking many children from abject poverty to at least a slightly better life by building wells, schools, roads or giving medical aid. I'm not takling about adoption fees here, for we don't know if money has changed hands, just the cost of bringing up a child in her kind of lifestyle.

Adoption should be about wanting a child, wanting to care for a specific child, not saving the world one child at a time, so I'm not sure that this really matters, especially as even the costs of most privileged upbringing is a drop in the ocean in terms of what is required to bring developing countries up to western standards.

I think what Magenta is says is the real issue - adoption standards are stringent in this country for a good reason, to ensure the reasons for the adoption are the correct ones, to ensure that the parent and adopted child will have a healthy relationship, and to ensure that the adopted child feels secure and loved. I feel really quite uncomfortable that being a celebrity means you can fly away with a child, without even a nod to best practices in both the country of origin and the proposed country of adoption.

Given how the previous generation's famous celebrity child adoption turned out - Woody Allan - I can't help wonder what Madonna and Angelina's adopted children will be facing.

But standards in this country are so high because we can afford for them to be - demand far outstrips supply of adoptable babies.

Demand outstrips supply of healthy, developmentally normal infants in the UK and the USA; there's plenty of older lone children and groups of siblings, with and without disability, who are desperate for a permanent home in these countries. But we don't lower the standards of adoption for these children because years of experience have shown that not being careful can cause many problems.

WZebraS.

There are not a large number of babies up for adoption in the uk becuase in most cases birth parents are given lots of additional support first by social workers before a child is removed from their care. Then it takes about a year or more in foster care for that child to go through all the legal processes to free them for adoption (if it is in the best interests of the child and the birth parents have not made significant and appropriate changes to their circumstances to make a return possible which happens in the majoity of cases).This means that children freed for adoption in the uk are likely to be 18months - 2years old and not 'babies'.

Unlike many countries overseas we have very few babies 'relinquished' by birth mothers for adoption or abandoned. which is why adopters wanting a 'baby' are more likely to get a child under 12months by gonig abroad. But the application process and approval is the same whether you adopt from bolivia or birmingham.

I am proud to live in a country that allows birthparents to get every help possible to keep their children and to be allowed reasonable time to change their lifestyles. Becauase staying with your birthparents is always the best option (where that famiy is safe and healthy obviously). But that is why adoption is never about 'wanting a child' it is about 'providing a family for a child who needs one'. the child's needs are always uppermost.

Magenta

I do get that, Magenta, but at the same time it seems a little patronising to me to make the decision on behalf of a child that its interests are better served by remaining with its "culture" and with a bit of luck growing up to be a happy healthy fruit and vegetable seller with five years' education, than by growing up with huge material advantages in a different culture.

If the usual processes are gone through properly, everyone involved knows that the decision to adopt was taken after close examination and because it's truly the best option for the child. When people are allowed to skip these processes for because they are famous, then there's always going to be questions as to whose interest was the permission to adopt was given.

I read a fab spoof article on this the other day but I can't remember where - Guardian? Private Eye?

Http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/can-i-have-one-that%27s-house-trained?-asks-madonna-200903311674/

?

I've recently met someone has has an adopted african brother raised in thew west and the adopted brother struggles with his identity - he has great trouble in his country of origin as his biological people do not understand him.

What i wouldn't give though to take some of the toddlers home I've seen here in orphanages - so beautiful and sweet. But I wouldn't!

Why do people want babies rather than say 2 years plus?

? at breeding pair.<cringe>

That wasn't it it though - this one was basically mocking the "competitive" adopting thing going on between Madonna and Jolie and how other celebs were dropping hints in interviews that they might adopt too so they could sound cool.

There does seem to be a feeling that this sort of competition exists between celebs, and I don't see why that necessarily has to be the case

L
xx

I'm pretty uncomfortable about it as well. The thing about adoption, as I understand it, is that it always has to be about what's best for the child. An adult's wish/need for a child is neither here nor there in the process. For example, those poor people whose boys were killed in that accident caused by the drunken footballer; they've recently been all over the papers because they're not being approved as adoptive parents at the moment (for fairly good reasons, AFAIK). Their heartbreak at the loss of their family and their "job" as parents doesn't mean that they can adopt.

I can see scenarios in which an adoption by a celebrity would be the best outcome for a child, but I have trouble seeing where TV crews and publicity fits into that.

But to put it bluntly, for most children growing up in Africa is a deeply sht outcome. If I could choose, I know what I'd go for, and I'd be amazed if the vast majority of people on here wouldn't agree.

Yes it is, Sophie. Of course growing up in the west is preferable in terms of health, life expectancy, education and all that stuff. I suppose I'm just wondering how much the sleb adoptions are about the children as opposed to the adults? Ideally there would be a way to help all those children, whilst not taking them away from their families. If you can't help them all, then helping one has to be better than doing sod all. But, inviting the cameras in to watch you with your newly acquired child? I always wonder what is gained by the children of famous parents by being paraded about in front of cameras; I felt as uncomfortable about OK magazine selling copies with a picture of one of Jade Goody's weeping sons on the front.

I'm wary of assuming that what we see on the news (especially celebrity news) is ever the truth as such, and it's easy to take a pop at Madonna et al for buying little poor children to keep their biological children company or make themselves appear philanthropic. But it's difficult to put a different construction on this, given her well documented desire for more children in the past years.

Just to add to those that say why not support Malawi instead by building schools, etc. She has done this.She has been involved with this country for many years now.

http://www.raisingmalawi.org/

I actually have no problem with madonna adopting. I find it far more preferable than her popping more out herself in the style of brangelina. I think it's good that she's giving a better life for her adopted children. I'm really having a problem seeing why people don't like it especially as she also has a charity (raising malawi) to help other orphans in malawi.

Probably because most of the bonding and confidence building for the child is meant to be laid down in the first 12 months- I guess.

having a 2 year old, I appreciate that children of this age have very strong attachments to carers, and being takena away from their environment would be fairly traumatic.

I am not a fan of Madonna adopting. We want to adopt from overseas- waiting lists are 3-6 years once you have completed the 2 years of investigations/assessments/health checks/parenting classes/references/ financial checks ,.....how did Madonna complete these in record time?