I hear Madonna is defending her right to adopt little David.?

Question

She says that she did follow correct procedure and that she also donated £1.1m to charities that help African children. Has the press made a mountain out of a molehill yet again?

Answer 1

Yes. She did donate money to build better orphanages and to help feed and educate those children. The father knew exactly what he was giving up and even placed the child in the orphanage because he had no food for the child. The only problem that there is is Madonna was to stay in that country for the next 18 months so the social workers could monitor her and the baby in his new enviroment to make sure he was adjusting well. HELLOOOOOOOOOOO this is MADONNA that we are talking about, he would have a great life. Who wouldn't want that for their child. :O)

Answer 2

Personally I find it very disturbing that a wealthy celebrity can just waltz into a country and adopt a little boy who has living family members including his father and grandmother. Honestly, how often do you believe this father is going to be allowed to see his son as he grows up? If Madonna truly cared about the plight of this little boy she could have sponsored him and his family and made it possible for father and son to live together. Instead she plucked the kid up as if he were the latest fad and took him home with her. If David was a true orphan (both parents deceased, no close relatives) then maybe people wouldn't be so tetchy about this "adoption" but the fact is the boy has a father who has said the only reason he gave his child to the orphanage was so that he could receive medical attention and daily meals. The father saw his son everyday.
Also, the adoption laws in Malawi state that in order to adopt you must live in Malawi for 18 months. Madonna had her "son" in the UK within 2 weeks. Wealth and status are all you need apparently to make your own rules.

Answer 3

what is the problem? the baby was given up for adoption when he was 4 weeks old, the father hasn't seen him of over a year and had shown no interest in wanting him back (until he thought he might get some money out of it)... would it have been better to allow this little mite to spend his life in a dirty rotten cot or being looked after by a wealthy pop star whetre he will want for nothing. If I had the money Madonna has got I would adopt a dozen kids and offer them all a loving home... good on her.

Answer 4

The press always make a mountain out of a mole hill and it's getting worse. There used to be a time when any children involved in any kind of controversial story had the right to annonymity but that seems to have gone out of the window now.

Whatever you think of what Madonna is doing I really don't think it's our business up to the point of where the press seem to think it is.

Answer 5

The only thing I think is sad is that it is so hard for a loving family that wants to adopt to have to jump through all of the hoops just because they don't have an outrageous amount of money to give and be the exception to the rule. I say make her follow the laws of that country just as anyone else would have to and live there for 18 months if she really wants to adopt this child.

Answer 6

Nobody says that she can't adopt the boy. It's just the way it came out in the media. The media made it sound like she was trying to pull a fast one by bi-passing all the rules etc.
Apparently, Madonna is going to be on Oprah today to clear up any misunderstandings.

Answer 7

in keeping with possibility she will value the undeniable fact that she became no longer taken removed from her to be the plaything of a rich, spoiled stupid b*tch like Madonna. relies upon if she cares approximately better than merely money. certainly if Madonna extremely cared approximately Mercy she might have donated adequate money to that family contributors to enable them to guard her and placed across up her in convenience. yet no, she's too selfish. Mercy's family contributors had located her in an orphanage quickly using fact they have been too undesirable to guard her. this would possibly not consistently be the case and that they have been making plans to convey her homestead whilst issues enhanced. Madonna is little greater useful than a baby snatcher. i'm happy she's been stopped. Why do those women seem to think of that that's their "perfect" to undertake? NOONE has the "perfect" over somebody else's baby! we don't have lots money and we've a liked 2 year previous son. Are you going to declare that Madonna could be a greater useful mom to him than me merely using fact she has money? Bullsh*t!!!

Answer 8

She needs to give that child back to his father, and give them the £1000s shes currently wasting on Harrods toys for the little boy, so the family can eat and house themselves and have clean water and medical care.

What she has done is reprehensible. A typical selfish indulgent act of the very rich.

If she really wanted to adopt a child she should have adopted one who was at least an orphan. And preferably from Britain or America so she wasn't taking the poor little mite away from their culture and country.

Answer 9

I think she would have done better to sponsor the babe, and let his dad and family look after him. She could have sponsored a hundred other kids out there, now that would have been impressive. I do not agree with taking David away from his kith and kin, and bringing him to a strange country, he needs to be returned to his mother land so that he can be taught about his country and his religion and customs. You did the wrong thing Madonna

Answer 10

Leave Madonna alone! She's a great mother to the two children she has; Why not offer another child a loving home full of opportunity!