@cak – I am sorry to hear that your approval was rescinded. However, taking up the needs of the child as the agency needs to do would mean that they would want to try to give a child a set of parents that will most likely be around for a few decades. You must admit that even some of your doctors gave up for a while (they didn’t realize how determined you are to live). Perhaps once you hit the five-year clear target they would reconsider.
We adopted here in the US and discovered that if you want children that look like AJ’s or M’s it is very, very easy. They asked us “What race?” and we said “Human.” They asked us “What sex?” and we said “Not until they are 18 and then it better be safe!” They asked us if we were joking, and we insisted we were not.
They also said because of my husband’s age we could only adopt special needs children. We said fine, as long as they have the potential to grow up to be self-supporting. The agency believed us so we have two beautiful children, neither one of which looks like me, my husband, or each other. But then my husband and I don’t look alike, either.
Most of our family is fine with everything, but there are a few folks who aren’t quite on the same page. However, I do know other families where it is vital to them that a child they raise look like one they could have made. Hence, they are waiting for the “white newborn.” OTOH, non-Caucasian friends seem to have a deeply ingrained belief that there must be something wrong with a child whose kin don’t step in to raise it and so don’t really believe in adoption per se. However, many of them practice an informal adoption, where everyone knows that little boy is so-and-so’s child but Auntie is raising him.
In terms of Madonna’s current difficulties there seem to be a number of different stories circulating. Apparently the little girl’s mother is dead, but her father is alive (but not raising her). Her uncle is in favor of the adoption but her grandmother says it would be stealing her grandbaby. The charity mentioned is Save the Children UK, which isn’t concerned with that particular child or village but in general feels that many international adoptions are unnecessary, some are flawed, that, barring exceptional circumstances, children should be kept in the care of their extended families or within their communities, and that Madonna’s high profile adoptions send the wrong message.
The problems with her son’s adoption seemed to have been two-fold: no one checked to be absolutely certain that the child was truly an orphan and then when he turned out not to be that the child’s father understood what she meant to do (he didn’t), and she got the residency requirement waived for whatever reason – the assumption is she used her money and fame to do it.
Madonna apparently does support several orphanages in Malawi so she is already helping the children of that country stay in that country. It is her very public adoption of individual children that is in question – many stars of similar magnitude never or very rarely parade their children in front of the cameras in hopes of giving them a normal childhood (as normal as it can be when your parents have millions of dollars and one or both is always running off somewhere to make a film or tour). If Madonna were to keep it all as quiet as her support for the orphanages I suspect it might run smoother.
But then there was that coffee table book, wasn’t there?
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
