My husband and I plan on adopting after we have two pregnancies. I think international adoptions are wonderful, as long as the adoptive parents vow to learn about and teach their child about his/her heritage.

Reply

Adopting internationally is a long and complicated process, and one that requires you to learn a lot about adoption and your child's birth culture. It's not something you can stumble into easily. My son is from a country in Africa, and I don't know any adoptive parents who haven't learned an awful lot about that country.

Reply

International adoption is a wonderful thing. It is important to remember that all children- one from your own country or one from somewhere else- ALL deserve to have a safe, nuturing upbringing..food in their stomachs, medical care and a family to love them unconditionally. If someone's religion doesn't consider it a priority to give a child a loving home regardless of cultural differences, then I suggest "adopting" a new religion.

Reply

Rachel, I want to address one issue you pointed out: family reaction. It was a long and painful discovery, but I have now learned that family members often react really different to a decision to adopt than they do to a pregnancy, especially, I think, if the adoption doesn't follow infertility. Maybe adoption feels like a subconscious rejection of your family's genes or something...

Most folks I know had weird reactions from family members. It's part of the territory. Some family members will be scared of the cost issues (though adoption isn't necessarily much more than an expensive delivery, and there is a federal tax credit of $11,000); some people will be scared of health issues of foreign born children; some people will insist on sharing horror stories they've heard (no one ever talks about the adopted kids who didn't become axe murderers). When you start reading about adoption, you'll start to hear these stories.

No matter what, though, I agree with Dee that ALL children deserve a home. And international adoption can be so much easier than adopting in the US. I looked into domestic adoption, and we would have been in a situation where we were courting a birth mother. Yuck. And older children are available for adoption when they come from really tough backgrounds and families. But older kids from other countries may be orphans who had a loving home before a terrible tragedy, but who know what it means to be in a loving family.

Here's what it comes down to: when someone tells you to adopt in the US, ask them how many kids they've adopted from the foster system. None? Thank you, next person please!

Reply

I would not assume that kids adopted internationally are more emotionally stable or healthier than kids adopted domestically. They have suffered tragedy at some point in their lives. They may be malnourished. They may not speak English. Did they lose a parent to death? If not, why was the child given up? Often for health reasons. Many health issues can be easily overcome in a "developed" nation, like cleft pallette. Some are lifelong health issues. It is naive to assume that these kids will easily adjust to life in another country because at some point they MAY have had a loving family. "Culture shock" can be very severe.

I think adoption is a great way to add children to a loving family. I support both domestic and international adoption. Kids are kids, they all deserve good homes.

Personally, I am going the domestic route. We are in the process of becoming foster parents. I know LOTS of families that have adopted domestically. Was it challenging? Of course. Any adoption is. So is childbirth for that matter. It's a personal choice to me made by individual families, but I am bothered by daisy's comments implying that adopting older kids domestically is too difficult to bother with. Adopting older kids from any country is always difficult. But judging from the many adoptive families I know (both domestic and international) it is worth it.

Reply

Celebrity Intercountry Adoption – the Awfully Off-mark Focus of our Lens

It was just inevitable that squabble and controversy would explode from Madonna’s visit to Malawi, the fourth poorest country in the world.
Madonna arrived in Malawi on Wednesday Oct 4 2006, intent on providing close to $5 million in education and other various programs toward alleviating the dire adversity and destitution faced by the indigenous orphans. She was also in the process of adopting a child from the nation which has a child mortality rate of 103/1000, an HIV infection percentage of 30%, and where 14.2% of the population is already HIV positive.

This particular adoption is currently being strongly criticized by many various factions including the Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) in Malawi, and the Eye of The Child protection society, as it seems that Madonna was granted certain exemptions from the country’s dated adoption process.
However, the director of child services in Malawi, Benston Kilembe has repeatedly said that the couple (Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie) had followed all the normal processes, which had actually begun months ago; and thus, the official application for the adoption of the child, David Banda, was approved through the High Court of Lilongwe, where an interim order was granted. This provision allows David Banda to reside with the singer for 18 months, while being monitored by officials from Malawi before a final approval is given for the child to wholly join with the family.

The majority of international adoptive parents reside in the US. Over the last few decades, US international adoption of children from developing countries has been on a constant rise, and especially so in the last 15 years.
Because of society’s misdirected focal point on celebrity, if ever a child from an impoverished nation is adopted by any celebrity, the details are naturally widely publicized. The media has recently dubbed the existence of celebrity intercountry adoptions as a mere “trend” while we are tirelessly bombarded with the respective particulars, even though such adoptions have been happening for years (Mia Farrow was doing it since the 1970’s).
Well! This is so laughable that I seem to be way past laughing! I just… it’s not… I just can’t laugh.
What is done (and thus seen in the public eye) by a few celebrities in this realm is merely a mirroring of what has been occurring for decades. A percentage of the US population is involved in trans-continental, transcultural adoption, and a few celebrities unsurprisingly fall into that percentile.

Jini Roby is an associate professor of social work at Brigham Young University, whose research, according to Noelle Nicolai in Crisis Calls for a Radical Increase in International Adoption of African Orphans, has proven that the coupling of the epidemic of AIDS in Africa with the orphan crisis “leave consideration of intercountry adoption as an imperative.”
In-country adoptions, also known as kin adoptions, were previously found to be effective, “but the kin system is now saturated and cannot adequately support the growing number of parentless children without external support.” Abuse and neglect is not unheard of and, says Roby, "although it may not be the ideal situation, a permanent stable home is still the better option."

International adoption simply is the viable alternative.

So, why is it that so much of the media is blatantly disrespecting the attention that it itself is bringing to strife-ridden, AIDS-ravaged Africa?
I am not too sure, but this fact may have something to do with it: Last year, American families adopted 7,906 orphans from China, as opposed to 440 from Ethiopia, which had more orphans than all of the other African countries combined.

(Sigh)… Will it ever end?

I used to think so. But I’m older now, and hopefully a little wiser.

We can always have hope, though.

Could it be that as a genuinely concerned citizen of our world, maybe Madonna has somehow actually educated herself on these issues and is yet again trying to accomplish something philanthropic?
Were the international adoptions of other celebrities given this much condemnation and scrutinized this closely by the press?

The world is especially hard on the Material Girl. It is way past the start of a new millennium. We are living in 2006/2007 and people are still jealous, spiteful and afraid when they watch someone who embodies an idea of free, innovative and different thinking.

What are we doing to ourselves?
Who are we as sentient beings?

At least there is some good that has come out of the despicable media farce that threatens to even further thicken poor Madge’s skin. Some much needed awareness has been raised regarding Malawi, and the possibility of international adoption is now open to those who may not have previously considered it as an option.

Girl! You better stock up on that Nivea!

During a short and very sour interview on Tuesday Oct 17 2006 with Suhana Marchand on CBC’s Newsworld Today, the forgettable Michael Blugerman, proclaimed invidiously that the child, David Banda “will have a charmed life, but how does that help the other children?” Well Mr… er… whatever, I really fail to see what, if anything at all, the separate, individual life of David Banda has to do with any other children, anywhere. Regardless of the fact that an indescribable amount of awareness has been raised by Madonna, David Banda and her Raising Malawi Foundation regarding the plight of “Africa’s AIDS orphans”, and the option of intercountry adoption.
This insidious Michael… whatever, then went on to falsely, recklessly claim that a foreign adoptive parent has to reside for at least 2 years in Malawi during the adoption process. Under the Malawi adoption system, an applicant should be resident in the country for at least 1 year - not 2.

But, nothing in this world is simply black or white!
Except maybe for the following statement: Basically the critics of this particular adoption would rather see one more child suffer the horrible plight destined to so many of Africa’s children, than to have allowed Madonna to continue to do her work without the extreme fanfare and drawing of attention to out-dated stipulations that have absolutely nothing to do with what Africa is facing today.
Interim orders are granted every day! They are inherent in all normal processes.
In light of what is happening in nations across the continent of Africa, the particular issue of an interim order being granted to Madonna in this case should be seen as even more normal!

It should be… but it isn’t.
Instead, it is wielded. As an effective weapon against the aid and relief of a rapidly dissolving representation and even foundation of human culture.
Taking into consideration the contemptible effects of colonialization, many people regard a high concern for a child’s welfare in a situation where he/she is taken away to be cared for by those of a different culture. This is a genuine, valid concern, and as Jini Roby stated in a discussion with me on Sat. Oct 21 2006, “many of the countries have a struggle with the past history of white colonialists and human slavery. They can’t believe that now a white person can really love a black child to the fullest degree.” However, this way of thinking can only hinder any benefit that can be gained through the incident of international adoption and, as Roby went on to say, “there are many barriers on both sides… that is why people who can traverse that chasm are to be congratulated.”
At this point, and in addition to the establishment of the charitable Raising Malawi Foundation, her Madjesty’s immeasurable heart (which, let’s face it, has to be at least vast enough to be able to house enough love in there for Madonna herself) is simply trying to help one more child avoid the inevitable: an extremely severe life of hardship and possibly death.

On behalf of the Eye of The Child protection society, Boniface Mandere said on Oct 16 2006: ''The court seems to have made a decision based on Madonna's wealth. But being a good parent is not about money. It is about caring, having heart. It's about love." Now then, if the Eye of The Child protection society really believes that Madonna has no care or love to offer, maybe the injunction they should be seeking is one that contests the multi-million dollar establishment of the Raising Malawi Foundation!

To add insult to injury, it was reported by many sections of the media that the confused father of David Banda, Yohane has claimed that he didn’t fully understand the details behind the recent events in his life. Well, who can say really what motivations have stirred this upset?
In an interview with Time Magazine (posted on Oct 24 2006), he has stated that he was not interested in reversing the adoption, as that would mean a significant demise for his son. As of Oct 26 2006, he was very concerned that Madonna would abandon the adoption: “These so-called human rights activists are harassing me everyday, threatening me that I am not aware of what I am doing… I’m afraid David will be sent back and the orphanage may not even accept him back. So where will he end up? Here? He will certainly die.”
Even if Madonna had considered returning David Banda to the hesitant hands of his birth father, and went on to adopt a different child, one without any living immediate family - so as to avoid any likewise complications, she would inescapably risk reinforcing the media’s unscrupulous view of the visit to Malawi as a mere “shopping trip.”

Oh Maddie! Our prayers are with you.
(I see a lengthy skit at the mental asylum in your future)!

During the much anticipated interview on Oprah aired on Oct 25 2006, Madonna thanked Oprah not for the chance to defend the adoption, but rather “for the opportunity to set the record straight.”
On being asked if she was hurt by the “negative press,” the singer replied: “I wouldn’t say I’m hurt by it… I’m disappointed, more than anything.” She harbors a concern that the media’s negative connotations to this particular incident may deter others from the idea of adopting from Africa.
A teary-eyed yet resolute Madonna then went on to state that her focus was turned to Africa while doing Live AID in 2004 with Bob Geldof, and that the couple (Madonna and Guy Ritchie) “decided to adopt 2 years ago,” although a location was not in mind. However, while becoming familiar with, and experiencing Malawi during the work that included the development of the Raising Malawi Foundation (the idea of which came about in Nov 2005), it seemed only natural that the adoption solidify with a child from Malawi.
Photographs were exhibited, and it was evident that David Banda is, at present, a very appreciated and cherished part of the family.
Speaking of 13 month old David, she disclosed that since his arrival at the orphanage when he was 6 weeks old, “he had survived malaria and tuberculosis, and no-one from his immediate family had ever been to visit him.” She believes, and rightfully so, that the obnoxious presence of the world press has frightened the local farmer, Yohane Banda, into a frantic worry over the adoption of his birth-son, after he had originally expressed gratitude toward Madonna for giving his son a life in the face of certain death.
At the close of the interview, firmly reinforcing her mandate, Madonna articulated: “I will give David an education and a chance for a better life, and what better way to go back and help his own people, and help (Malawi), and be a voice for the people, than to be able to first have a life and be educated.”

Madonna intends to return to Malawi often, every year, and hopes that David would be able to go with her, as well as the rest of her immediate family.

Whew! This has been one trip!

Sadly, there is no celebrity trend that I see here. Only prejudice, covetousness and misplaced resentment.
And although Madonna has seemingly gained some understanding from a pathologically unkind media while yet again deflecting some seriously incomprehensible hostility, this is only temporary, as usual.

Yes, I am sorry to inform you that, in the words of Phil Collins and Genesis, “This is the world we live in.”


-Kevin Dass

Reply

You're right... adoption can be a sticky issue. We are coming to the end of a long international process and will be meeting our daughter (S. Korea) for the first time either at the end of this year or the beginning of 2007. We have been learning about her country and are excited about the community we'll have here with other parents who have adopted from S. Korea. For us, we had talked about adoption since our dating days 7 years ago; we KNEW it was in our hearts and going to be a part of our lives. For us, adoption wasn't a decision based on infertility (although many people assume we are infertile which I find funny).

I find it annoying that people have such strong views on adopting internationally vs. domestically. I think that either option can be a beautiful thing, and both options are going to require a lot of love, patience, and work. I think that we as people sometimes see all these borders and like to keep borders in place, whereas God looks at the world and doesn't see borders. We are all his children... As far as domestic adoption goes, my husband and I would also like to adopt from the U.S. Foster care system some day. I think a beautiful thing about domestic adoption is the possibility for openness, which isn't as possible with international adoption. Studies have shown that adopted children who know who their birthparent(s) are do VERY well in life, emotionally and stability wise and are comfortable with who they are.. they don't have the questions and fears and insecurity issues that some adopted kids have about WHY they were placed for adoption. I think many people fear openness when it comes to adoption, but it's actually a really good thing in many, many cases. Jim Gritter is a great source for exploring the openness option.

Also, you have to consider the birthmom/birthdad's perspective. The often heard quote "adoption is where a baby grew it it's mommy's heart instead of her tummy" really bothers me because it ignores/pushes aside the fact that NO, this baby DID grow in it's birthmom's tummy. Especially for the birthmom, the decision to choose adoption is often difficult and filled with pain. Most of these moms already love their babies incredibly and will continue to think about that child they placed for adoption for the rest of their lives. For some of them, the ability to keep in touch and the peace that comes from knowing their baby/child is doing well and is loved makes it bearable. I think we will all see an increasing trend toward openness and will realize we didn't have to fear...

Reply

I have internationally adopted five children, so obviously I have strong opinions here. Three of mine share my race and two do not. They were all "older" at adoption, not infants.

When asked why I do not adopt from the U.S., I simply answer that the issues are different for domestic vs international adoption and I felt most educated and capable of dealing with the issues of internationally adopted kids (although we did strongly consider adopting out of the US foster care system). It simply felt most "right" for our family.

Yes, my internationally adopted kids DO all have issues of various types (physical, emotional, academic, cultural) as a result of their time spent in orphanages or as a result of the traumatic change in culture they had to experience. And I have dealt at times with unsupportive extended family members. But I educated myself to deal with those issues and I get professional help for them as it is needed. And I have kept in touch with some of their orphanages enough to have seen for myself that the kids left behind are worse off. The future for a kid who "graduates" from an orphanage is pretty bleak.

I say: Follow your heart! No one can judge Madonna's heart or anyone else's. It makes me sad that our society is still at a point at which her child's race makes us question her motives!

Reply