View Full Version : Madonna and Child
Should Madonna be allowed to adopt a child from Africa?
As with all children up for adoption, as long as he/she will be happy and loved then yes
Generally I'd agree with Fluff but in this case I'm not so sure. The family have said they want to be able to visit him - can you imagine the complications and confusion this is going to cause? Could be wrong but I got the impression the uncle was angling for an invite to a wealthy home. Also not happy that she seems to be by-passing usual channels - not that I agree with them (at least not if it takes 4 years to be approved which is what was reported) but don't like the attitude that because she's rich she can do what she likes.
Just heard on news that she had consent to take the child. Still has not gone through proper UK channels.
changilass
16-Oct-06, 19:04
With regard to the birth family having contact, this happens in this country in quite a few cases - just because parents cannot for whatever reason look after their own kids it does not necesarily mean they should not be able to have some form of access albeit limited.
In many cases contact is between the child and extended family such as sibling, aunts, uncles and grandparents. This can be good in giving a child a sense of its belonging.
Any child who is adopted should be brought up knowing it has 2 families, a birth family and an adopted or forever family. If things are explained properly and age appropriately there should be no reason for confusion.
Sorry, rant over.
pultneytooner
16-Oct-06, 19:12
I would say that if she and many more celebrities were prepared to put some of their millions to use helping more of these children have a more comfortable life in their own countries then it wouldn't smack of either a cheap publicity stunt or maybe just the latest fad of the rich and famous.
Rheghead, you missed a button for "who cares", because I dont.
It has become fashionable for celebrities to adopt foreign children. This does not mean they do not love their children or will "get rid" of them when no longer useful. Madonna is helping alot of children by supporting an orphanage in Malawi. We do not know the reasons for her and her husband wanting to adopt. Anything we read in newspapers will be speculation or invention. She has 2 children that to all intents and purposes seem to be thriving. She wants to mother another child and give that child oportunities that were as probable as any of us winning the Euro lottery. To deprive the child of this to make a point is wrong. This child has been living in an orphanage since birth. A competent mother and family want him. Let him have them.
connieb19
16-Oct-06, 19:49
Rheghead, you missed a button for "who cares", because I dont.but it's this years fashion accessory, you should care lol. Maybe you should get one for your mrs. :eek:
Good luck to them. What I seen on Tv is the biological father was happy that his child is going to be looked after well, so everyone is happy.
Cannot see this being a publicity stunt. I mean, its Madonna for goodness sake, does she need the publicity?
Wonder if she would adopt me?
Not only can having pots of money buy you anything these days, but how many 'celebrity' marriages last the course? The chances are that the poor child will end up coming from a 'broken home' eventually.Yes I know that single parents can bring up children perfectly well and you can't tar everyone with the same brush,it seems to me that a child in this position could be leaving one poor background for another even more confusing one!
I can see the possibility of the natural family members seeing this as a means of getting money, especially when the child grows up.
I can see the possibility of the natural family members seeing this as a means of getting money, especially when the child grows up.
I'm more than happy for her to adopt, she strikes me as a caring and nurturing mother, and this wee fella would have a wonderful life beyond believe with the Richie's. And the gossips say she's been desperate for another baby for sometime, but alas she's not been able to conceive.
However, like Rheghead, I see trouble ahead. The father is far too involved, interviews with the media, demanding to see the home (like it's going to be a dump, doh?!) and such like. I can't imagine Madonna must be very happy with this either.
Also, it appears the rules for adoption have been bent somewhat to accommodate her. Don't agree with that... smacks of "have money, can get anything". I would have a lot more respect for her if she either accepted and abided by the rules of adoption in Malawi, or looked to adopt in a situation where she was able to fulfill the criteria, without the need for nudges, winks and funny handshakes. :confused
pultneytooner
16-Oct-06, 21:15
Why adopt a child from africa anyways unless she is after publicity, are there no needy children in the uk?
I am sure a woman with her millions could do a lot more for those children than adopt one child and think she's making a difference.
if she passes all the checks and meets the criteria yes. if its be cause shes rich ans famouse then nope.
percy toboggan
16-Oct-06, 21:20
Good title Rheghead.
This child is a fashion accessory.
A sickening business.
Not only can having pots of money buy you anything these days, but how many 'celebrity' marriages last the course? The chances are that the poor child will end up coming from a 'broken home' eventually.!
So will the majority of non celebrity marriages and partnerships. Does this mean that none of us should become parents or are inadeuqate parents? Celebrity marriages/partnerships do not suffer more break ups than "ordinary" ones. They are just a whole lot more public and known.
Why adopt a child from africa anyways unless she is after publicity, are there no needy children in the uk?
I am sure a woman with her millions could do a lot more for those children than adopt one child and think she's making a difference.
Any child in need of a family should have one, be they from wherever they are. But in the UK poverty is measured by the number/age of TV sets in a family, so I would question trying to compare the needs of a poor family in the UK with a family in a third world country.
pultneytooner
16-Oct-06, 21:41
Any child in need of a family should have one, be they from wherever they are. But in the UK poverty is measured by the number/age of TV sets in a family, so I would question trying to compare the needs of a poor family in the UK with a family in a third world country.
Every child should have the chance of a loving family, rightly so but I think you miss the point I am trying to make in that I question her motives for adoption.
Why does she want to adopt and why in particular a child from an impoverished region?
Does she think she is making a difference to third world poverty by adopting one child.
She and all those others with obscene amounts of money would make more of a difference by using some of that money to shorten the gap between our countries in terms of standards of living, now that would make a difference and would be something I would have a lot more respect for than using this kid as the latest fashion accessory.
The first question to be asked is whether the child needs to be adopted in order to survive?
Surely we should be working towards preventing the birth of children who are doomed to die due to poverty?
It seems wrong to me that poor people should procreate in order to provide a child for rich people in another country. It is pretty hard for me to imagine giving my kids away under anything other than the direst of circumstances.
I would have thought that a more meaningful contribution to the wellbeing of many more people could be made using the same money. They could always keep it anonymous as well, as true kindness needs no publicity. As Smash and Nicey used to say, "It's all for Charridy but I don't like to talk about it"
Alice in Blunderland
16-Oct-06, 22:04
I am sure the life this child will have with Madonna will be priveledged whether she remains married or divorces.It will be better than the life it would have if things were to continue as it is.
I think it's really good what madonna is doing shes giving a child without a mother a home and I'm sure hes going to be brought up very well just like her other two kids maybe other stars might do the same thing she also has invested money into the area to help these kids.
connieb19
16-Oct-06, 22:11
She's not got a new single out soon by any chance has she? :confused
cuddlepop
16-Oct-06, 22:13
No she shouldn't be allowed to adopt this child as it appears she has been given special treatment just because of who she is.
There are plenty families who have been waiting to adopt for years and this woman can use her cele status and everything is fast tracked.Some of the couples who are waithing have no children and she has two healthykids.
Not impressed[disgust]
No she shouldn't be allowed to adopt this child as it appears she has been given special treatment just because of who she is.
There are plenty families who have been waiting to adopt for years and this woman can use her cele status and everything is fast tracked.Some of the couples who are waithing have no children and she has two healthykids.
Not impressed[disgust]
The huge majority of families who have been waiting to adopt for years are adopting "nationaly" and not internationally. If, like most couples, you want to adopt a very young and unmolded child, of a certain sex, with no siblings and that has no behavioural or health problems, then it will take a long time to find you a baby.
If you are willing to make an older child, or take more than one child as in the case of siblings, or one that has a behavioural or health issue, then there are so many children in the UK who cannot find homes. Just last year I remember watching a documentary on the subject on bbc.
This child that Madonna proposes to adopt did not deprive any family who has "been waiting for years" from getting a child. Infact, this is probably the only real chance of a family that this child has. Money, power and fame will always bend the rules ( fact of life), but in this case the only thing happening was giving a child a home with someone who looks like a competent mother. At the same time a whole lot of other orphanes will have a better life in a very poor country dying of aids. I do not understand why there is such huge cynicism with regard to the womans motivation. Whatever her reasons, some good has come out of it for a bunch of people that desperately need some help and particularly one little boy. Let her be a mother to this child, because he will be taken care of, if only for the fact that the world will be on stand by to point a finger and yell "I told you so" if things get messed up.
So will the majority of non celebrity marriages and partnerships. Does this mean that none of us should become parents or are inadeuqate parents? Celebrity marriages/partnerships do not suffer more break ups than "ordinary" ones. They are just a whole lot more public and known.
Oh call me a cynic if you want but it does'nt seem that long ago that Madonnas marriage problems (whether true or not ) were being flouted by the press.
If, and I admit its a big 'if ' its true then I am sure (imo )that there is not a marriage guidance counsellor ( if that's what they are called nowadays )in the country who would agree that bringing another child into the family will help to cement a relationship.
I'm sure that they will do all they can for the child who will no doubt have a very privileged upbringing ( not to mention the folks back home!)but I have my own reservations about the adoption of babies/children from the 3rd world by rich celebrities. :(
at the end of the day.. we have a child here that has very little hope of a future.
i would have to say that if she can take this little boy and give him a future and a life with out starvation.. mental illness.. and deprevation then who are we to say nay.
i was in tears the other day.. watching on cnn.. where orphanages were in dire straights in parts of europe. where there are laws that children cant be adopted outside the country.
and these children were becoming metally instable.. and actually going insane. from being tied down.. and left completly alone from infancy.. with no social interaction.. simply because there were no one to love them or give them simple things like cuddles..
so yup.. let her have the little boy..
by all means celebrate she is going to give 3 mil. to the orphanage!
i tell you what if it was me as the parent and i knew someone like her had offered to take my child. and i knew that they would have a better life that i could give them. .ie we were starving... ect..ect.. and all they had to look forward to was death and disease .. then heck yeah i would be throwing them to her!
i would morn their loss every day for the rest of my life.. but at the same time rejoice because they have a chance at something that i could never have given them.. LIFE
I'm a bit divided on this one. Yes I think it's great that the little boy will have a better start in life, but does it mean that anyone with money can do this sort of thing? just bypass the paperwork and take them straight home. I also agree that contact should be maintained by the boy and his family. We all need to know where we came from and have a sense of belonging. It's a shame that she couldn't have looked at some of the poor kids in care here tho.
Kingetter
17-Oct-06, 10:42
She is not the first 'celebrity/important person' to look outside her own country to adopt and probably won't be the last. I have no time for her or publicity seekers and am thinking of the child - I'm an adoptee so have some experience in the matter of adoption. I do not think it is particularly good that a child from that culture is placed in one where 'money is no problem' and the 'Holywood' culture isn't one I'd want my child brought up in ever.
When there are needy and deserving cases in her own country, she should have 'done her thing' there. Even in Britain there are cases of children needing help such as - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6054292.stm
Just because she has money does not mean she can provide a good, safe family home for a child. I'm not sure whether she is stable enough to do so.
I too am undecided, although I'm siding towards no - I don't think the occassional visit to 'home' will give the child a true picture of his culture.
If Madonna bonded with the child, why couldn't she sponsor the child in order to improve his life within his own surroundings & culture? Maybe even sponsor his father so that he could bring up his own child.
j4bberw0ck
17-Oct-06, 12:45
There are plenty families who have been waiting to adopt for years and this woman can use her cele status and everything is fast tracked.Some of the couples who are waithing have no children and she has two healthykids.
Not impressed[disgust]
Then presumably those who've been waiting to adopt for years might be able to do something similar and adopt a Malawian child? I don't mean to be overly flippant but there's an enormous oversupply of orphaned children in Africa in the category that most people want to adopt. As as Ju said:
If, like most couples, you want to adopt a very young and unmolded child, of a certain sex, with no siblings and that has no behavioural or health problems, then it will take a long time to find you a baby.
If you are willing to make an older child, or take more than one child as in the case of siblings, or one that has a behavioural or health issue, then there are so many children in the UK who cannot find homes.
I don't see a problem with her adopting the child. I see a problem with people of unknown status being able to wander off to places like Malawi or anyone else and effectively buy young children, but that's different.
Mister Squiggle
17-Oct-06, 14:21
I've just voted "no" as, whilst I don't object to her adopting a child if she and her husband feel passionate about it, I do have problems with the haste in which this has happened. I was not really bothered one way or the other until I saw the pictures from today's news websites of that little child, all bundled up and hidden from the cameras, being rushed through Heathrow in the arms of some hench-woman hired by his new mommy. He must be SO confused. Surely there should have been some time to allow him to adjust, to get to know her and her family, to bond?? Instead, he seems to have been whisked off at great speed with nary a thought to how it all must seem to him.
It's a lovely idea, helping a child in need by adopting him into your home. But, as an adoptee, I know it's not without its complications and this all seems to have been done as fast as possible and with little of the screenings, restrictions and red-tape other parents would face in a similar situation.
at the end of the day.. we have a child here that has very little hope of a future.
i would have to say that if she can take this little boy and give him a future and a life with out starvation.. mental illness.. and deprevation then who are we to say nay.
i was in tears the other day.. watching on cnn.. where orphanages were in dire straights in parts of europe. where there are laws that children cant be adopted outside the country.
and these children were becoming metally instable.. and actually going insane. from being tied down.. and left completly alone from infancy.. with no social interaction.. simply because there were no one to love them or give them simple things like cuddles..
so yup.. let her have the little boy..
by all means celebrate she is going to give 3 mil. to the orphanage!
i tell you what if it was me as the parent and i knew someone like her had offered to take my child. and i knew that they would have a better life that i could give them. .ie we were starving... ect..ect.. and all they had to look forward to was death and disease .. then heck yeah i would be throwing them to her!
i would morn their loss every day for the rest of my life.. but at the same time rejoice because they have a chance at something that i could never have given them.. LIFE
Your post seems to typify the "sticking plaster" approach to a problem. Let's be happy about one kiddy being saved and not bother getting to the root of the problem. We should be addressing the fact that people in poor countries are bringing children into the world without any hope of them ever living a meaningful life due to their poverty and all that it brings. We need to concentrate on stemming the birthrate in these countries and helping those that are already born to have enough food, clean water and shelter. Someone with true charity in their heart would donate in the way that is most beneficial to the people in need and without the need to get something out of it for themselves.
There are places on the Internet where you can illegally purchase children given up by poor families. We should be be wary of creating a climate where people in poor countries are becoming a breeding factory for infertile couples in the Western world. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that some of these people are having kids purely to sell for the profit and not for the want of a child to love and bring up themselves.
While it is hard on people who cannot bear children, the fact remains that a child is a gift and not a right. If we can all get a grip on that, then perhaps there will be less people clicking on "add to basket" under the photo of some unfortunate bairn brought into the world solely to go onto eBaby.
Your post seems to typify the "sticking plaster" approach to a problem. Let's be happy about one kiddy being saved and not bother getting to the root of the problem. We should be addressing the fact that people in poor countries are bringing children into the world without any hope of them ever living a meaningful life due to their poverty and all that it brings. We need to concentrate on stemming the birthrate in these countries and helping those that are already born to have enough food, clean water and shelter. Someone with true charity in their heart would donate in the way that is most beneficial to the people in need and without the need to get something out of it for themselves.
There are places on the Internet where you can illegally purchase children given up by poor families. We should be be wary of creating a climate where people in poor countries are becoming a breeding factory for infertile couples in the Western world. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that some of these people are having kids purely to sell for the profit and not for the want of a child to love and bring up themselves.
While it is hard on people who cannot bear children, the fact remains that a child is a gift and not a right. If we can all get a grip on that, then perhaps there will be less people clicking on "add to basket" under the photo of some unfortunate bairn brought into the world solely to go onto eBaby.
So sad but so true!
martin macdonald
17-Oct-06, 17:37
i hope she is a better mither than a singer:Razz
I'm more than happy for her to adopt, she strikes me as a caring and nurturing mother, and this wee fella would have a wonderful life beyond believe with the Richie's. And the gossips say she's been desperate for another baby for sometime, but alas she's not been able to conceive.
However, like Rheghead, I see trouble ahead. The father is far too involved, interviews with the media, demanding to see the home (like it's going to be a dump, doh?!) and such like. I can't imagine Madonna must be very happy with this either.
Also, it appears the rules for adoption have been bent somewhat to accommodate her. Don't agree with that... smacks of "have money, can get anything". I would have a lot more respect for her if she either accepted and abided by the rules of adoption in Malawi, or looked to adopt in a situation where she was able to fulfill the criteria, without the need for nudges, winks and funny handshakes. :confused
Ok, so I'm feeling a bit cheated now by Her Madge & Mr Richie... the wee boy was collected from the orphanage and taken back to the UK by an assistant/nanny whatever. Point is, it should be his new parents collecting him, and helping him understand what's going on/all this new stuff. Regardless of what work committments you may have had, a new child changes everything. Maybe this just highlights how this whole adoption is being rushed. I'm disappointed, I think this goes part way to showing that he's just a possession or toy to them. Poor show. :(
percy toboggan
17-Oct-06, 21:57
Maybe this just highlights how this whole adoption is being rushed. I'm disappointed, I think this goes part way to showing that he's just a possession or toy to them. Poor show. :(
Well said. You are absolutely right and it confirms my original reaction.
cuddlepop
17-Oct-06, 22:08
There treating the child like a newly required possession that they couldn't be bothered to pick up themselves.
This speaks volumes[evil]
AS I understand it there will be no adoption for at least 18 months. The Judge who was dealing with the case has given permission for the child to leave the Country and will rule on if the adoption should be allowed at the end of that 18 month period. During that period the judge will evaluate the manner in which the child is being raised by Madonna and her husband according to the Tribal Customs of the Country.
The concern raised by the Children’s Charities in Malawi is about whether the correct procedures were followed. So far I have heard no reports that there is any concern raised over the fitness of Madonna and her husband as parents.
I would have far more sympathy with those Organisations, who are putting on such a display of concern over the proposed adoption, were they showing equal concern over what is described as a run down, dilapidated Orphanage trying to care for 250 children who, it would seem, have distended bellies and many of who are suffering from HIV and Malaria.
Far be it from me to suggest that, instead of preening themselves before the World's Media in a grand display of shocked hand-wringing they would serve the needy children of Malawi by rolling up their sleeves and stopped simple hand-wringing and got those same delicate hands grubby actually doing something to ease the situation of all those other needy children.
But, then again, there's no glory in that, is there?
This child, like so many others, deserves a warm bed, food, love, clothing and so much more . If Madonna chooses to offer this to him, why should it not be taken . Yes, he must be confused, his Father must be heartbroken, but do you really feel an orphanage is a better place for any child ? I am sure the caregivers do the best they can for the children , but in many of the poor countries, health care is so limited . I voted yes. I want him to have a chance for a happy and healthy life and it breaks my heart that more children do not have the same opportunity .
Lolabelle
18-Oct-06, 07:48
I don't really have an opinion on celebrity adoptions other than that they should give them a better life and opportunities than they would have had previously. Surely that should be a good thing????:confused
Billy Boy
18-Oct-06, 12:56
i have voted no,up until today i was undecided then i seen a head line in a news paper which she said "i'm helping one child escape a life of poverty" what about the rest, would she not be better putting some of her million's into a trust fund for a hole village of say five hundred people,how long would some of her million's keep a village going for?then she could say " i'm helping 500 people from a life of poverty" but then is that to much like commen sence,after all i'am just working class not a millionare just breaking law's to get what i want,now if that was a working class couple trying to smuggle a child out of a country without the proper paper work,what would happen then?hung, drawen, and quartered,and they say money can't buy you everything in this case it can[disgust]
now if that was a working class couple trying to smuggle a child out of a country without the proper paper work[disgust]It can hardly be called "trying to smuggle" when you have the permission of a Court and with the full knowledge of a Government who have also gone to the extent of providing a Passport in order for the child to leave the Country.
It can hardly be called "trying to smuggle" when you have the permission of a Court and with the full knowledge of a Government who have also gone to the extent of providing a Passport in order for the child to leave the Country.
'Deportation' more like. Can you imagine the outcry if it happened in this country?
'Deportation' more like. Can you imagine the outcry if it happened in this country?Only from the usual suspects! Personally, I would take the baby back to Malawi and dump it on the father's lap and let it take it's chances back in the Orphanage.
I will make no comment at the moment about my opinion as to why the father wishes for the child to be dumped elsewhere until it is old enough to look after itself.
Pity that all those displaying "shock, horror" about the way things were done weren't paying the same attention to the children in the Orphanage before all this occurred.
Two hundred and fifty children dumped into one Orphanage caring for unwanted children from one small group of villages in one small area of Malawi. How many are there like that in the whole of Malawi? Just who is providing for them? By all accounts the Orphanage is very run down and even more short of necessities and the people who run it are left to do their best for the children there, many of whom suffer from aids and where malaria is rife.
So what? Who cares? Why bother with concern about their plight when there is the opportunity to grab headlines on the back of somebody who happens to be famous.
I have not heard one of those organisations expressing "shock, horror" or any of our Media, with their sudden "convenient" concern, spend one moment asking what is in the best interests of the child.
One thing I will guarantee is that, whilst the spotlight of the World Media is shining on it, the child will not be dumped back in the original Orphanage because it would mean that something would have to be done about the conditions and there's no publicity in doing that, is there?
And you can guarantee that nothing will be done about the children in other Orphanages which are similarly struggling to cope.
Personally, I will be only too happy when the Media find some other “non-story” to entertain the public with. Had t not been that somebody famous is involve the whole situation would have hardly been mentioned by the Media, even on a poor day for news.
willowbankbear
24-Oct-06, 09:46
Rheghead, you missed a button for "who cares", because I dont.
shes the queen of sleaze & the most famous woman in the world, course ye should care Golach, She is Royalty[lol]
teritoots
24-Oct-06, 13:00
Mr & Mrs billyboy I think if you read bbc's website Madonna has pledged 1.6m to the area to help the orphanages. Therefore she is helping 500 kids not just one.
Would you really like to see this wee boy taken back to the orphanage to lead a life of 4 walls and no love, no attention?
You can not save everyone but if you had the chance to save one life would you?
Mr & Mrs billyboy I think if you read bbc's website Madonna has pledged 1.6m to the area to help the orphanages. Therefore she is helping 500 kids not just one.
Would you really like to see this wee boy taken back to the orphanage to lead a life of 4 walls and no love, no attention?
You can not save everyone but if you had the chance to save one life would you?
Ah, but don't forget that his poor daddy loves him so much that he wants him back eventually.
That's after somebody, anybody, else has gone to the trouble of bringing the boy up and he become old enough to send out to earn some money!
This child, like so many others, deserves a warm bed, food, love, clothing and so much more . If Madonna chooses to offer this to him, why should it not be taken . Yes, he must be confused, his Father must be heartbroken, but do you really feel an orphanage is a better place for any child ? I am sure the caregivers do the best they can for the children , but in many of the poor countries, health care is so limited . I voted yes. I want him to have a chance for a happy and healthy life and it breaks my heart that more children do not have the same opportunity .
I voted yes as well. I hope he grows up into a well adjusted, wealthy young man, who will then work to help others in his own country. This may never happen, but at least he will be given the chance which is more than he would have if he had been left where he was.
j4bberw0ck
25-Oct-06, 10:16
I hope he grows up into a well adjusted, wealthy young man, who will then work to help others in his own country. This may never happen, but at least he will be given the chance which is more than he would have if he had been left where he was.
Exactly. The day we (as in the human race) decide not to save / rescue / help anyone because we can't save / rescue / help everyone is the day we collectively qualify for the Darwin Awards.
If we haven't done so already, of course.
Exactly. The day we (as in the human race) decide not to save / rescue / help anyone because we can't save / rescue / help everyone is the day we collectively qualify for the Darwin Awards.
If we haven't done so already, of course.
Here, here!!
The amount of money that Madonna (or should that be Belladonna) is going to be spending on that child will set the entire village up for life - clean water, plantations of suitable crops, herds of goats, training and education for all the villagers, a new school, a hospital. Crikey, the money she spent on just going out there and oiling a few palms would have done it! Just think, she will be spending somewhere over $200,000 before he is even a teenager.:roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.