She had taken a child from Malawi despite not being a resident of Malawi – a legal requirement for adoption of Malawan children. How?
Tags: Adoption, Around, Madonna, Malawan, Rules
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 10:02 PM and is filed under Adoption.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:39 PM
Show me ‘da $ badda bing!
February 11th, 2010 at 5:29 AM
The residential laws in most countries are there to stop abuses of children by people who just swoop in, adopt and leave with the children. Hardly a worry in Madona’s case since the world is watching and she would not have an opportunity to abuse a child. In the first case, the residential requirement was waved by the court (with the consent of the countries adoption director) and she was allowed to adopt. In the case of her second one, the process was denied due to public pressure and the matter was sent to the countries Supreme Court who ruled, after much deliberation and consultation, in Madona’s favour again. Many will put it down to money, some will put it down to common sense. Lets face it, there is no need for the enforcement of the residency requirement in her case and after everything else was considered she was allowed to adopt. In fact, the adoption has also been approved by a number of international adoption oversight agencies as well. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are here for the most part.
February 11th, 2010 at 12:10 PM
The high court apparently overturned the decision. If they published the opinion, I’d like to read it. If the child has family in-country, willing and able to raise her, I can’t see any court deciding to allow her to be adopted by someone else.
I’m very surprised here.
As to the “Whys and wherefores” of the decision, we can only speculate. Maybe the biological family was not a safe placement (but I think if that were the case, that would have been in the press release). Could be that the high courts felt that the vast amount of cash and charity that Madonna is pouring into their country would cease, otherwise.
Dunno. I’ll wait to see if more details are released.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Dear Heather,
“She had taken a child from Malawi despite not being a resident of Malawi – a legal requirement for adoption of Malawan children. How?”
I read in an article (that I can’t seem to find now) that the Judge who granted the adoption gave reasons along the lines that:
a.) Madonna is a “resident” due to her “generous donations” to the area over an extended period of time thus making her an “important part of their community” and enough of a “resident” to adopt.
b.) That we are all a part of the “global community” and that basically since Madonna is a resident of Earth, she is a “resident” of Malwai.
I personally feel that it has far more to do with money and crooked/ignorant politicians who either don’t understand/care about the effects this has OR a FEAR of having Madonna cut off her “aid” if they did not comply with her relentless pursuit of this particular child.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:47 PM
I don’t know if what we see in the media is a full story, or if any of it is even true. It does appear that she was able to bend the rules and adopt the girl even though she is not married, and is not a resident of Malawi. I have a tendency to think it’s all about money and pressure. I think it stinks. I bet you don’t see anyone else adopting from there in the way Madonna has. She’ll be the only one because she has the big bucks and the right “people”.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Once again, money talks, and Madonna has pots of it. It is a given that what would be criminal in any other arena ceases to be so when adoption is thrown into the mix, and that seems to be true internationally as well as domestically. In any other circumstance this would be child trafficking. There are people who have very recently been charged with that in this same exact circumstance. However, they didn’t have the cha-ching factor added in that Madonna does.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:44 PM
I agree with $$$$. I’m not saying she bribed anyone although I’m not saying she didn’t. It could just be that the Malawian government is thinking another one of their children hit the jackpot.
What I don’t understand is I thought Mercy had family members who wanted to raise her. Were they not allowed to remove her from the orphanage after Madonna was first turned down? I thought since I read that they stepped up and said they didn’t want her adopted that they would be permitted to take her back to live with them.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:48 AM
This is a post I’ve already made about this Madonna thing:
I still feel the same way even though it doesn’t really answer this particulat question it’s relavent to the topic.
She is doing a good thing no matter how much money she has, she is not being selfish! Just because she has a lot of money doens’t mean she has to adopt the whole damn town.
So no one should adopt because only adopting one child doesn’t make a difference? It makes a difference to that child, I think thats good enough
On the other hand, maybe Modonna, Brad, and Angelina should all pool their money together and adopt africa… There problem solved.
P.s Madonna and Lourdes also visited a village in Malawi and looked over plans to build a new school there. The singer has several charity projects in Malawi. So I wouldn’t think that she is selfish at all.
no amount of money will ever solve Africa’s problems. Madonna might as well rescue one little girl from the slums and give her a decent life. David Banda and Mercy James will have a full education and hopefully meaningful careers some day. And they will not have to follow the well-worn African path of living a hand-to-mouth existence, held back by poverty, drought, war and disease.
Yes, Comic Relief did very well this year. But I wonder are we seeing the beginning of a New World Order? Well, Madonna always was at the cutting edge of fashion. Is it time to abandon the notion that dropping loose change into a bucket can really save lives around the world?
Can mere charities ever hope to overcome the staunchly backward traditions of genital mutilation and child marriage, for example? Will we ever be able to raise enough money to operate on the hundreds of thousands of young girls whose bodies have been destroyed by rape and unassisted childbirth?
Will we ever be able to persuade millions of young men to lay down their guns, lay off the drugs and always wear a condom? It’s all very depressing. So maybe Madonna is right to pluck one lucky tot from some barren village made of rags and sticks. After she gets over the shock of seeing the mighty skyscrapers of New York, the little girl will surely thrive.
Pay to keep these kids in their country? So they can keep their culture? But yet we are discusted by some of the “traditions” these cultures have, and want to change them. There is no way to win here.
Like I said, im glad im not rich and under the microscope of people who seem to know better. (I welcome the thumbs down)
February 12th, 2010 at 5:07 AM
Well, she’s Madonna. She can buy anything she wants. Not only is she not a legal resident, her “orphan” isn’t even an orphan.
Some people seem to think money is all a child requires to have a good life. I don’t know if giving up one’s father, culture and language to become a chic accessory to a single woman who has no time to raise a child is that great a deal.
Don’t we convince single mothers to give up their kids so they’ll have the two parents every child is said to need? Why is it OK if it’s Madonna? Because she can pay a nanny to be those two parents?
February 12th, 2010 at 6:58 AM
It certainly seems she got around that rule entirely, since she clearly doesn’t live in Malawi, and doesn’t even speak the language.
I realize it’s the court’s job to interpret the law, and it may be that when the findings are made public, there is some justification. (I would still disagree with the decision, but there may be some actual legal reasoning behind it.)
At the moment, though… it appears that money talks.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:56 AM
She’s rich. She does what she wants.
Personally I think the money she used to buy her child should have been used to fund programs to help the people of Malawi. Taking one child out of poverty does not change anything except to remove one child from the situation. You can better affect change by going to the source of the issue and spending money solving what is really the problem.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:18 AM
It’s the “Golden Rule”. If you’ve got the Gold, you make the Rules! (Or break the Rules)
Money money money money, MONEY! As the song goes.
I’m NOT saying, that it’s the way it ought to be. I’m saying that some people, with more money than brains, can get whatever they WANT, from people who want money more than character.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:22 PM
From what I have read, the maternal grandmother said at first she didn’t want the child to be adopted, but that “they were so persistent” she had to give in. Also, the bio dad has said he wants to raise her. SHAME on Madonna for stealing this child. If she really loves her like she proclaims, why not help the family raise her? Help support them in their quest. She has enough money, she could help them instead of stealing this child. ARGH.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Because it is all about her and she is very powerful. She does not give a damn about the child or she would have let it go to someone in the country who cared.
I have spent 3 years trying to adopt and have just been placed with a lovely girl but if i had known how easy it was to go and buy a kid like madonna has, then i wouldn’t have had to wait so long.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Some people say this little girl will get a “better life” but how? Yes, she will now be able to live in luxury and have all the material possessions she wants but now she will be largely raised by nannes and never see her natural family again. Even David, the boy she adopted a few years ago, needed an interpreter when he got to see his father again after being away for more than three years.
February 13th, 2010 at 2:24 AM
Seriously Darling, you need to ask
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$…
Furthermore, as and adoption specialist I would never approve a twice divorced, recently settled second divorced single mom right now.
Mind you, I do single parents all the time….I do people who have been divorced 3 maybe for times…..but the ink on her divorce is not even dry.
February 13th, 2010 at 3:16 AM
Money.
Mad doesn’t adopt……she picks and chooses the kids she wants and then buys them.
IA is child trafficking despite how much christians sugarcoat it.
February 13th, 2010 at 9:00 AM
$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$
and did I mention $$$$$$$$$$
Apparently with enough money you can buy whatever you want. Including a child from the country of your choice…Does tis kid have a family too?? I bet it does.
February 13th, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Money no doubt. The whole thing is despicable & sickening if you ask me. We all know the child is for trend purposes.
February 13th, 2010 at 6:18 PM
She didn’t. The Malawan OFFICIALS approved her request. The question should lie with them… and them only.
February 13th, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Money talks. Get the red string ready for this poor girl’s wrist.
February 14th, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Money can almost get you anything. Freedom for one look at all the rich who do what ever and nothing happens to them because they had good attorneys.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:07 AM
$$$$$$$$$$
February 14th, 2010 at 7:40 AM
She added a comma and a few extra zeros for the pay out!
February 14th, 2010 at 10:11 AM
money, for sure. she didn’t follow any of their rules and she still gets to adopt…wtf is up with that?
February 14th, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Please!!! Are any of you people gonna adopt mercy and give her a better life?!!!
Answer is No.
Madonna is a fit mom. Maybe not 100% the best but since shes a celebrity everyone gets to pick her apart and criticize her.
The fact of th ematter is maddonnas resources are going to allow mercy to have an enriched and wonderful life where she will have a better opportunity to persue her dreams.
You think she can do that in an orphanage?!!!!
Think before you ******* type.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Who cares? That child will have a far better life and education with Madonna than if she remained in Malawi.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:17 PM
I really don’t know, but I just saw the news and how wonderful for that child! She will truly have a better life now instead of always looking so sad.