this time it is'nt angelina jolie who'd have thought! and now the father of this kid claims he did'nt understand he was giving up rights to said child! last time i checked adoption was'nt a rental process.
2006-10-25 23:42:52 · 8 answers · asked by mIKE m 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
I think it's a bit weird that, out of all the orphans in all the 3rd-world countries, Madonna couldn't find one who didn't have any parental ties. The whole manner in which she went about this adoption sound questionable. I do wish that people would stop comparing Madonna's adoption to Angelina's. Angelina does tons of hands-on charity work, and in the process of doing so, she found two kids that she decided to adopt. And Angelina never made that big a deal out of it.
And I wish people would stop saying things like "celebrities should adopt American babies". Do you know how hard it is to adopt an American baby? Or any American children under the age of 5? American adoption agencies have turned the whole process into a multi-million dollar baby-brokering industry, with one- to two-year waiting lists and the actual adoption costing between $10,000 and $25,000. And many states offer all kinds of legal loopholes where the birth parents, or families of the birth parents, can regain custody of the children within a certain period of time. Basically, the American adoption industry is making it almost impossible to actually adopt children.
2006-10-26 08:00:17 · answer #1 · answered by badkitty1969 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think that the people against this adoption just want some publicity for their own selfish reasons. Madonna or not, adopting a poor child to give him a better future is a great act of unselfish love. if you think about it, there really is nothing that Madonna could gain from all this that she doesn't already have. in the end, the true beneficiary will be the adopted baby. so i hope that those stupid protestors would think about that. as what the baby's father said, where were these supposedly child welfare BS when the baby was hungry? puh-lease!
2006-10-26 08:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by Michelle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a mess, but celebrities and people with a lot of money pretty much get whatever they want. She bypassed a lot of adoption red tape in that country and shouldn't be able to adopt any child until she fulfilled all the requirements just like anyone else would have to do. If I'm not mistaking, most (natural) parents have a certain amount of time after the adoption to change their mind. Unfortunately with Madonna's money and fame, the father doesn't stand a chance to get his son back. And many parents realize the mistake they've made when adopting out their children and want them back. Considering his circumstances, I can understand why he'd want better for his son, but he probably realized he doesn't want to live without his boy. That should be his choice to make. If you can't tell, I'm aggravated about the special treatment celebrities get when it comes to red tape and the law. In my opinion, the boy needs to be with his father. And Madonna and every other celebrity needs to go through the red tape and fulfill the requirements like everyone else. If they really want to adopt the child, they would not argue with that and do what they need to do.
2006-10-26 06:53:12 · answer #3 · answered by T.G. 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think Davids father is being pressured by Malawi officials to make that statement.He gave his son up for adoption 6 days after he was born.He said he could not provide milk or other necessities for the youngster.Africa is the poorest continent in the world,it's because of Madonna he will have a bright future.He will have the best education,medical care,regular meals,and a family.These are all things he has never had before.Madonna is also donating 4 million dollars to Malawi.That will give over 4000 youngsters an education.
2006-10-26 06:49:45 · answer #4 · answered by Celebrity girl 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's not. And quite honestly, who really cares. She'll be able to provide for the child. Besides, the guy left his kid at an orphanage. By doing that, he gave up his rights to the child before Madonna even stepped in.
2006-10-26 06:49:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
With all the kids in the orphanages she was checking out, I don't know why she just didn't choose one that had no parental ties.
2006-10-26 07:21:15 · answer #6 · answered by 7aliens 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Madonna should not be allowed to adopt. She should also be sterilized and have her child placed protective custody.
2006-10-26 06:53:01 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel H 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
WHY DO THESE CELEBRITIES GO TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND ADOPT CHILDREN WHEN THERE IS CHILDREN IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY WHO NEED LOVING HOMES? CHARITY STARTS AT HOME!
2006-10-26 10:08:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋