Adoption is about childless couples getting children, right?
Wrong.
Adoption is about a child without a family getting a stable, permenant family to care for him or her.
It’s better for a rich person to adopt a child than to let them live in poverty, right?
Not always.
The “cure” for poverty is…money, not adoption. In the case of poor children, often the extended family takes them in, despite the financial hardship, to raise.
Another belief is that a stable, rich, middle class home is better for kids than keeping them with poor relatives, such as elderly grandmothers or aunts.
Wrong again.
Kids need roots,and keeping in touch with family is important.
Some adopted children, who know they have relatives, but are taken in by strangers, they often start thinking they are “no good” or that the “evil” mother “stole” them from their family. A friend of mine went through hell when her kid became a teenager started acting out because his only memory of his father was saying goodbye to the man at the airport. In this case, the boy’s mother was dead, and his beloved father had placed him for adoption when he developed terminal cancer. But children don’t understand such things…
Which brings up another point: It is best to keep the children in the same culture, race, and religion.
All of these are again part of a child’s roots.
There was a minor scandal in the US after the TV show “Different Strokes” came out. The show inspired many couples to adopt “cute” black kids. Black social workers intervened. Often these kids had families or close family friends who were willing to take them in, but the white social workers turned them down for being single, or not having enough bedrooms.
A similar change in adoption policies of Native American children was implemented by most tribal councils.
As a result, most adoption agencies stopped inter-racial placement, except for hard to place children.
So does that mean that I oppose adoptions, or oppose adoptions from other cultures?
No, because I did adopt two sons from overseas. But my sons were given to me because keeping them together was more important for the boys, and older, school aged children are hard to place.
It helped that I spoke Spanish and had lived overseas, and was Catholic (my older son insisted on a Catholic home).
But in adoption, the first option should be family members. Programs that help fund the child’s expenses often allow these children to be cared for at home.
The second option is adoption by a local family, so that the child stays near his roots.
The third option is adoption in a stable two parent family from a different culture, including overseas placement, especially for infants and small children who do best in a family environment.
Option number four is local foster families: Many third world countries have group homes with trained parents to raise these children.
Option number five is adoption by a single parent. This includes gay adoption and adoption by divorced persons (in countries that allow this option), but the parent has to be checked for stability and the possibility of marriage with a person who would not accept the child.
Option number six is an institution such as an orphanage. These give good “care” but not the personal love needed by children to thrive, and is only an option because option number seven is having the child live on the streets supporting himself by odd jobs, including petty crime.
Most street kids–and in many countries, many children in orphanages– are not “orphans” but runaways or abandoned by families, or who fled abuse in their homes, and who prefer life on the street to a bad home situation.
In the Philippines alone, there are a million and a half street kids.
It should, however, be noted that in poor countries, often parents place children in orphanages as a temporary placement when food is lacking.
For example, in Africa, baby formula is expensive, and cows to milk rare. So if a mom dies, either a relative nurses the baby, or you place it in an orphanage, or it dies.
One major scandal was that Madonna’s first child had a family who placed him for such care, but was adopted away by her. Never mind that he had a family.
Madonna’s defenders saw the orphanage placement as “not wanting the child” when the reality was that the child would have died without placement. Similarly, her defenders criticized the father’s quick remarriage, when poverty means that an unmarried father has no way to care for even his older children.
The first adoption by Madonna became a scandal: it had all the appearances of “rich lady” adopts “poor black child” from loving family.
So it is no wonder that this time around, the courts turned her down.
Finally, most countries want their children adopted into stable families: few countries would allow the adoption by a recently divorced single mother.
This isn’t to say that a single or divorced mom can’t adopt and raise a child, but that most countries would insist a waiting period after a divorce before adoption…especially for a mom who has had multiple marriages and whose sexual antics on stage would make many conservative Africans blush.
Another problem is age: Madonna is 50, and many adoption agencies (not Malawi but other countries) will not place a very young child with a parent more than 40 or 45 years.
So what is the alternative?
Well, with a fraction of her airline ticket, she could support an orphan with a local family for a year.
The kid won’t wear designer clothing and have his or her own personal nanny, but he will be loved and cared for.
And Madonna?
Sorry, I just don’t think that adopting matched black kids is a nice way to get publicity.
————————–
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. She has two adopted boys from Colombia, now adults.
Her webpage is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket.
8 users commented in " Why Madonna shouldn’t adopt "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYeah, because Madonna needs so much publicity by going through hell again. Truthfully, if she wants publicity, she can just walk out of her house with a new coat.
You are full of s*** and I’m saying this as an adopted child. I was born in Guatemala – though I don’t remember much from there. All I know is that the orphanage that was supposed to take care of me didn’t.
I am thankful a nice Jewish couple adopted me. Even though they divorced, I became much better off than I would have in the so-called “orphanage.”
But for you, and other politically correct people, this isn’t about what’s best for the child. It’s about putting Madonna, the most successful female singer of the century, in her place. We love to put spoiled, rich woman down.
I’m sure all the critics of this adoption are running around now, so happy and excited because a girl will be languishing in an orphanage where most kids die of aids before they turn 10.
Nancy, I’m sorry if I’m harsh. I want to assure you that I’m no big fan of Madonna either. But I want you to watch this video to still see if you have the same opinion:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/64450/i-am-because-we-are
You can’t save everyone in the world. It would be best for Madanna to stay in that country and live amoung there kind, instead of singling out one precious little girl.
I’m not saying Madanna isn’t capable of buying another child. But I do agree that if the bio family doesn’t want the child to leave the country then that is the wish of the family.
Yes it is very poor over there and the percentage of life expectancy is half then ours. But that is the norm for that culture.
Women marry younger and have kids younger and are grown up at the age of 13. We shouldn’t push our beliefs just because we think we’re the better country.
And if you think that Madanna doesn’t need pubicity, think again, She’s didn’t make it cause of her singing alone.
John – I am happy for you that you were happy being adopted. Not everyone is.
You might be interested to read what other internationally have to say:
http://www.transracialabductees.org/index.html
and: http://tinyurl.com/5qdjqe
Many recognize that the ends do not justify the means and that material advantages are not necessarily “better” than heritage and culture. What is wrong with trying to allow children to have BOTH — their own culture and the resources they need?
You are angry. But your anger is misplaced.
Nancy Reyes is courageous and speaks the absolute TRUTH – no BS! The Guatemalan government has set the same standards:
Family preservation first
extended family second
domestic adoption next
international – last resort
This is what is recommended by all child welfare experts: Save the children. The United nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and The Hague Convention on International Adoption, Ethica and Adoptive Parents for Ethical Adoption Reforrm (aPEAR).
Other recommended reading that echoes what Reyes has written:
1. Child Trafficking by David Smolin works.bepress.com/david_smolin/
2. Romania for Export Only
romania-forexportonly.blogspot.com/
3. The Lie We Love by E.J.Graff
http://tinyurl.com/6p2sbb
4.Red Thread or Slender Reed
http://www.ethicanet.org/redthread_slenderreed.pdf
5. The Stork Market: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry http://www.AdvocatePublications.com
6.Read about the Hemlseys:
http://tinyurl.com/72s7kw
7. Meet The Parents: The Dark Side of International Adoption
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/meet-parents-dark-side-overseas-adoption
Your misdirected anger, John, is not uncommon among those of us who have experienced adoption loss and separation. You family of origins no doubt is angry as well that they did not receive the resources they needed to remain an intact family.
Mirah Riben
I personally think Madonna is nuts. She travels with cameras to adopt a child from an impoverished country. Why not stay home and adopt a child from closer to home? Why must it be a poor black child? Why not adopt a child with a disability? She surely has the money to adopt as many kids as she wants. Or at very least provide money to see that they are all well cared for.
This isn’t about love and generosity of spirit. It’s about a public image that she seems to enjoy. She is a 50 year old woman who is closer to the grandmother years than the child bearing years.
I don’t think she can face the age thing. She isn’t a twenty-something material girl anymore. She’s an old publicity hound with a selfish need follow and set trends.
Why wouldn’t she donate some money to the locals for a school or a hospital or provide the town with a work program to enable it’s residents to become self sufficient?
Uh, because then she isn’t getting what SHE wants.
My point was that if Madonna is too emotionally unstable to care for the children .
As a mother of “hard to place” children from Colombia, I have no problem with adoption from other countries, (my sons were older, and their younger siblings adopted by Colombian families…)
but both of the kids involved with Madonna have extended families who could care for them–neither of her choices are abandoned children, but from families who can’t afford formula needed to feed the kid in the first few years of life.
And I don’t have to watch photos of poverty: I’ve worked in Africa.
I agree that Madonna is emotionally unstable.
I stand by my point that Madonna is using these kids to make her appear youthful. Maybe her 20 year old boyfriend wants to have kids so she’ll fly over to Africa and get some more.
Her desire to adopt is selfish and self-serving. She is trying to turn her image into that of Mother Theresa. She is looking for redemption at the expense of these poor children.
I know many people who have adopted children from other countries. One family adopted 8, all from Poland orphanages. There were no cameras or headlines about this remarkable family. They wouldn’t have wanted that. They just wanted to have a family.
Dear All,
All meanings count also does the ones from John. I also agree that what Ms. Reyes wrote is one of courage and importance. But also can her ideas be questioned after understanding she also is a adoption mom.
Besides Ms. Riben her comments on John is paternalizing and not helping much adoptees who are unaware about the reality of many adoptions. Probably John does not know her book the Billion dollar Baby market and also not the articles she mentiones here.
United Adoptees International (UAI) does and so do we know a lot more as many adopters, adoption parents and authors. The interesting part is, due field research of adoptees in the world many scandals appeared and the UAI disclosed many of them by media and such. The UAI is one of the few organisations in the world who is active to put a stop to illegal adoption and childtrafficking actively. How many people are doing this also ? Not many as we found out.
At the end, authors of adoption books and many adoption parents seek the save side and are not really willing to get into the dangerous political field of intercountry adoption.
The UAI does and is because of her involvement many times under attack of many sp called gooed adopters and adoption parents.
We were, next to foundation ACT the only ones who wrote to the UK and US embassies in Malawi in the case of ‘Mercy James’.
We were the only ones who helped the birth mothers in Belgium last feew months to get a stand in the Belgium Senate while they want to introduce ‘sealed records’again. Where were all the others calling that interest of mothers and adoptees are important.
Who is willing to write the permanent bureau of the Hague Convention on Adoption to tell them the group of advisors should be extended with adoptees instead of Ethica adoption moms ? I guess no one…
John I guess you have the rught to have your opinion but many adoptees who found the truth about the adoption and many who did not, are not happy with their adoption. Even when they are, many of them question the intentions and the backgrounds of their adoption.
You should udnerstand, that the debate about adoptions has many different levels. Your personal adoption (being adopted) is a different issues as the procedures, treaties and ethics behind adoption. Many adoptees are most loyal to their adoption and adoption parents and thats good and nohting wrong about it. But Loyalty is different as the primal bound we have with our origins. And this all is different with attachement which is scientifically used to score you on the succesboard of adoption. Loyalty can make you blind for the reality and many adoptees have not much space to stay calm and overthink the reality regarding adoption without becoming emotional. Which is vert normal. But we adoptees should learn to understand adoption as a whole will we have a discussion where adopters and adoption parents will listen to us. Study and research about the issues and develop our own language regarding adoption. Intercountry Adoption (ICA) is a dangerous fiels to enter as an adoptee. Or you are just a ‘child’ or you are to much involved and therefor not objective (as adoption parents are) or you don’t have a academic degree and if, than you people try to put you in the first two categories etc.
ICA is changing every day but what has not changed at all is the power of politics and adoption parent groups in the world. They are the most important part why things are go wrong and things are going so slow to develop.
But we need each other to change and to rewrite history. With each other but than every one needs to understand what is really going on and listen and seeing the ‘truth’ and not exclude anyone.
Mothers (and fathers) in Africa or Asia are no lesser mothers as in the West. We should empower these women instead of taken their children preaching it is the best interest of their children or themself. Economic wealth arguments may never breach the safety of children rights and their parents.
Protect the parents first so they can protect the children. Adoption is a last resort and not a facility.
We can change the world. Yes we can.
United Adoptees International
Hilbrand Westra
I believe there are far far too many children in the world who are in desperate need of a loving family and/or also in need of the basic necessities to sustain life for anyone to actively prevent any particular means of providing it.
For example, when I heard that the child Madonna adopted from Africa had a father I thought it would have been better for Madonna to provide for the father and child so they could stay together. That is IF the father really wanted his child. (I don’t know)
I thought it would have been better for Madonna (and all adoptive parents) to adopt a child with no living relatives OR none who WANTED to take in the child.
Unfortunately some extended families and foster families will take in a child for the money if the child is subsidized in some way. That does not guarantee a loving home as many horror stories prove.
On the other hand I’m sure there are low incomen families who would like to adopt but are prevented from doing so because they are poor.
I think it would be ideal to enable children to stay in their cultural environment but how practical is that?
And what is more important? A loving home in which the children are truly WANTED? Or a “home/institution” that is obliged to care for them for the money or to ensure their upbringing in their native culture?
We need to be much more generous in providing funds to support the best home for each child, more creative in finding the best home for each child and – very important – provide FOLLOW-UP to ensure each child’s continued well-being.
Leave A Reply