English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

I'm not totally sure of the circumstances of the adoption, but I think it is a disgust and despicable act. If she is so heartless as to take a child from his father even under the guise of a better life, they she probably wouldn't think twice about paying people off to get her way. Why couldn't she adopt a child who has no parents? If she truly cared for this child, she would have helped him stay with his father, she is rich enough after all.

2006-10-17 08:48:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

"My husband and I began the adoption process many months prior to our trip to Malawi. I did not wish to disclose my intentions to the world prior to the adoption happening as this is a private family matter.

After learning that there were over one million orphans in Malawi, it was my wish to open up our home and help one child escape an extreme life of hardship, poverty and in many cases death, as well as expand our family.

Nevertheless, we have gone about the adoption procedure according to the law like anyone else who adopts a child. Reports to the contrary are totally inaccurate. The procedure includes an 18-month evaluation period after which time we hope to make this adoption permanent.

This was not a decision or commitment that my family or I take lightly.

I am overwhelmed and inspired by my trip to Malawi and hope that it helps bring attention to how much more the world needs to do to help the children of Africa.

My heartfelt thanks for all the good wishes I have received and I hope the press will allow my family some room for us to experience the joy we feel to have David home.

Madonna Ritchie
October 17, 2006
London, England"


Maddonna released that statement, I think money may have been a small factor, But she has not 100% legally adopted him yet, He is temporarily in her care untill the period of 18 months is up.

Anyhow, That little child has won the lottery, God bless his soul.!

2006-10-17 17:26:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Madonna is not a person, is an industry. She work selling music and videos. Every step she takes, is thinking about publicity. She adopted that child just to be on tv. Go and buy her new release.

2006-10-21 14:00:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

She is now, 'Madonna and child'. Will the child be just another material possession? An extension of her ego. Maybe she believes she is the real Madonna. The ultimate ego trip.

2006-10-19 06:26:07 · answer #4 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

I bet she didn't pay anything she is someone who gets what she wants when ever she wants it.
But using a child as a fashion accessory just goes to prove what a heartless cow she is.
Why not just donate a few of her millions to help the area the child came from and do the job of bringing up her own 2 kids without leaving them with help as she does her globe trotting.

2006-10-17 16:17:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Its a shame she can't put her money to better use!!! Why not support an orphanage and help LOTS of children? Or help a child with NO parents? Little David has a daddy and a nana! She should be ashamed. She's barely at home for Lourdes and Rocco as it is!! They must feel terrible!

2006-10-17 15:52:22 · answer #6 · answered by Pixxxie 4 · 1 0

Well they say money talks! Its seems this is the new fashion accessory, Will this make her a stay at home Mum - I don't think so!
Will she get up during the night?
There are plenty of kids both here in the UK and USA - but, hey, that would'nt get her good press coverage

2006-10-17 16:31:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No I doubt if she paid anyone. She probably just brought him here knowing that although he has no visa or passport this sloppy government would never demand his return or the soft left do-gooders would cause mayhem. If they had the courage to say he had to return to Malawi the decision would undoubtedly be challenged in court by the 'Human Rights' mob and then be subject to as many appeals as possible so it would drag on until he was fully grown.

2006-10-17 15:56:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If Madona had some sense, she should have adopted the entire village were this child comes from and not just one. Imagine how this poor soul will struggle fitting in. It would have been better to let the kid grow up among his own kind. Madona has enough money to adopt the whole of Malawi.

2006-10-17 16:48:11 · answer #9 · answered by Clementinah N 1 · 1 1

she must have if the law states that you have to live in the county for at least 18 months before you can adopt why is it different for her it doesnt make sense.

2006-10-18 17:10:28 · answer #10 · answered by cha 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers