Human rights group take Madonna adoption case to high court, adoption now delayed

[moomies]

Madonna Adoption Case Taken to High Court by Human Rights Group


By WENN| Friday, October 20, 2006


HOLLYWOOD - The Malawian human rights group who are protesting against Madonna's adoption of 13-month-old David Banda are taking their case to the high court in Malawi capital Lilongwe today--insisting they are still suspicious of the "secretive" nature of the situation.
The group will ask the judge to impose an injunction to ensure the pop queen and her husband Guy Ritchie returns to Malawi in order to go through complete adoption checks. The Material Girl star apparently whisked the child back to London before the procedure could be undertaken, and reportedly took advice from a Californian adoption agency in a bid to dodge strict UK measures. The campaigners claim Banda's biological father was unaware of the logistics of the situation when he allowed his child to be taken to Britain.

Executive director for the Centre of Human Rights and Rehabilitation in Malawi Undule Mwakasungule says, "We will go to the high court and ask the judge for an injunction to bring Madonna back to Malawi and go through the proper process.

"What is not right is that the father still thinks the boy is his boy. He doesn't understand what adoption means.

"He doesn't understand the boy is completely and forever going to be out of his custody.

"We want to know why this adoption was so quick and so secretive. Madonna has said she started the procedure a long time ago, so why was it not an open process?"


source:
http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3568914

[bite me spidey]

I hate Madonna and don't understand her wanting to adopt a baby all of a sudden, BUT, if one person -- any person -- can take a child living in poverty and give them a better home, I don't understand why anybody would be against that. I doubt Madonna is going to harm the child so... What IS the big deal?

[moomies]

Judge in Malawi postpones hearing challenging Madonna's adoption

20/10/2006 1:42:00 PM

LILONGWE, Malawi (AP) - A judge postponed a hearing Friday on a lawsuit by human rights groups challenging the Malawi government's decision to let Madonna begin the adoption process for a motherless 13-month-old boy.

Judge Andrew Nyirenda delayed the hearing until next Friday to give Attorney General Jane Ansah time to consult with the Ministry of Gender, Child Welfare and Community Services.
"We are ready for the case but the attorney general wants to consult with the Ministry of Gender on the whole adoption process," said Alan Chinula, a lawyer representing Madonna. "Our position is all legal aspects were followed."
Madonna and her husband, Guy Ritchie, have been given temporary custody as a step toward adopting David Banda, who has spent most of his young life in an orphanage after his mother died of complications from giving birth.
His father has said he is too poor to raise the boy on his own and he wants the couple to adopt his son. The boy was flown to London on Tuesday and taken to Madonna's home there.
The singer said in a statement that she and her husband have followed the law in the adoption process, which would be completed after an 18-month evaluation process by Malawian authorities. Normally, prospective parents in Malawi are given custody and monitored in the country for 18 months to determine their fitness. The regulations make no special provisions for foreigners.
Yohane Banda, the father of the boy, has denounced efforts by human rights groups to challenge the adoption.
"Where were these people when David was struggling in the orphanage? These so-called human rights groups should leave my baby alone," he said in an interview earlier this week. "As father I have okayed this, I have no problem. The village has no problem. Who are they to cause trouble? Please let them stop."
Undule Mwakasungura, a lawyer for the Human Rights Consultative Committee, which comprises 67 human rights groups, said the committee "is not necessarily against the adoption," it just wants the laws to be followed.
"We note that laws were flouted and our concern is that government may set a precedent that can legalize human trafficking," he said.
He said Madonna and her husband spent just eight days in Malawi but won a court order giving them temporary custody of the child.
He said the committee wants to be a party to the adoption process to make sure the law is followed. He said current law bars international adoptions, saying adoptive parents must be residents in Malawi and must be assessed for between 18 and 24 months.
The judge, in granting the interim custody order on Oct. 12, said the issue of residence is not specified in the laws.


source:
http://entertainment1.sympatico.msn....etect=&abc=abc

[A*O]

It's about time somebody told a celeb they can't 'buy' a baby because that's exactly what's happening here. And why are we so arrogant to assume that placing a kid from a 'deprived' background into an uber-wealthy 'western' environment is necessarily a good thing, especially when we know damn well that the kid is going to be raised by an army of nannies while 'mommy' pursues her oh-so-important career.

I know couples who have been waiting for YEARS for the chance to adopt a child and the bureaucracy, political correctness and general bloody mindedness of the agencies involved has made many of them just give up in despair. And here's Madonna (and Angie and Tom/Nicole, etc etc) who can just go an pick up a new kid whenever it suits them.

[leapinglilies]

oh. my. GOD! PEOPLE! there are MILLIONS of children out there who need homes!! vadge and the father are ok with it so WHY does everyone need to cry about it? this baby is getting a chance to go to great schools, eat as much as he wants - he'll be banging chicks, get married, have a life. not be some poor farmer like his daddy - or dead! and you would take that away from him?? i say if you're willing to fight SO hard to keep this baby out of vadge's arms then YOU fuggin' adopt him and you give him everything he could ever need. who CARES if a nanny vadge hired or some state hired orphanage runner is looking after him?! honestly, the vadge nanny probably gets paid more and is more focused on david cause he's the only little one to look after, not a whole house of babies. ugh... whatever. you can't argue these points with people cause all they see is madonna. what about david?

[aabbcc]

Wealth does not necessarily equal a good life nor a happy life. Money is NOT the be all and end all of absolutely everything. There are MORE IMPORTANT things in this world than wealth.

This stupid ass woman ripped a kid away from his people, his homeland, and his culture for selfish motivations. She probably will not instill in him anything relating to his birthright.

Let's strip away this child's identity ... who cares that he's laying alone in a room surrounded by ridiculous expensive CRAP while his new 'mother' has fucked off and is back to living her useless shallow life ... it's okay because now he has a life of luxury?

Money is one of the reasons our culture is so fucked up.

[ediebrooks]

Besides, David's father recently said that it was his understanding that he was just giving the baby over to Madonna temporarily to raise and educate, and that the child would eventually return to his care. I think the poor man was taken advantage of. He apparently is not well educated and did not comprehend the documents he was signing.

I'm not saying it's better for a child to be raised in poverty than in affluence, but I do believe Madonna behaved selfishly and arrogantly. She seems to think she is above the law. Also, since David is not really an orphan but has family that could care for him, it would have been nobler for her to donate a sizable sum to them.

[Seapharris7]

Originally Posted by ediebrooks

Besides, David's father recently said that it was his understanding that he was just giving the baby over to Madonna temporarily to raise and educate, and that the child would eventually return to his care. I think the poor man was taken advantage of. He apparently is not well educated and did not comprehend the documents he was signing.

I'm not saying it's better for a child to be raised in poverty than in affluence, but I do believe Madonna behaved selfishly and arrogantly. She seems to think she is above the law. Also, since David is not really an orphan but has family that could care for him, it would have been nobler for her to donate a sizable sum to them.

Ok, are his translators completely botching this $hit up?

At one point the dad says he’s happy, then he’s confused & doesn’t want his child adopted. Then he AGAIN says he’s happy about his son going to America, now he’s again confused. What the hell is going on?

In ANY CASE - Madonna should use all this media uproar as a sign she needs to get out of this adoption, she is only making herself look like a villian instead of a saint.

[Nitelite]

I'm not a fan of Madonna but I this is what I have to say. Consider this:


"Just because rich westerners are seeking out children in developing countries doesn’t mean that past crimes are being repeated. Madonna may not be seeking a fashion accessory. Neither might Angelina Jolie, who has adopted an Ethiopian child. (and she adopted Maddox when adoption wasn't considered a trend). Maybe they are just trying to help. It’s not fair of us to project our sordid history onto the philanthropy of rich Americans, whose only crime appears to be being rich Americans. ”

” Inter-country adoption gets dreadful abuse. Do-gooders complain about children being removed from their culture. The fact they are also being removed from economic and emotional deprivation seems to be beside the point. What do they think a child actually wants? The right to grow up in an orphanage competing for a scrap of affection or the right to a healthy life in a happy home? I know what I’d do if I visited an orphanage in Malawi. I’d sign over the SSIA and then figure out a way to bring home at least one of those children and hold them and love them. To hell with “culture” and self-flagellation over our imperialist western values. ”

A very good article-the rest of it is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...415544,00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although David is not exactly an orphan as one parent is alive, but what parent wants to see their child suffer and potentially die? Especially when someone wants to give them a loving home. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt. NO ONE adopts a child for publicity reasons or as a fashion accessory. I think that is just MEAN. Publicity comes and goes, is either good or bad and is not that consistent.

Madonna has two children already, and knows what being a parent is all about. She has been saying she wants another child for two years now, and having been active in AIDS charities for 20 years she is well aware of African AIDS orphans.

Does Madonna do anything on a whim, anyway? She has about as
careful and planned a life as anyone could! As for having a parent still alive, how many babies and children up for adoption in the U.S. have living parents?!?!? HELLOOOO!!! If a child is available for adoption, it’s because the child was put there, and the parent, if still alive knows he/she cannot take care of the child.

I just read that David's father said this:

"“Had they told us that Madonna wanted to adopt my son and make him her own son, we would not have agreed to that,” Banda said in his local language of Chichewa."

“It would have been better for him to continue staying at the orphanage because I see no reason why my child should be given away forever when I can feed him,” he said, speaking at his village of Lipunga near the Zambia border late on Saturday."

The whole story is on MSNBC.

MSNBC said the David’s two older siblings died in that orphanage. So this father would prefer his son died rather than be adopted. I'm sorry but that does not seem right.

What I don’t understand is why Madonna didn’t get this squared away prior to making move ONE. It makes no sense. Rather than showing the world how adoption can be of aid in perilous circumstances it appears that Madonna may be making it look like a fiasco, which could discourage people.

I think Madonna’s problem started when she allowed herself to be filmed on her journey to adopt a child and to give money to a charity. When most celebs adopt, we don’t hear about it until the baby at home with his/her new family.

And as for the comment that all this makes Madonna look like a villian intead of a saint...obviously not many seem to be educated on the background of people considered saints. And this also applies to those who accuse Angelina fans of making her out to be a saint.

Some of the greatest saints in the history of the church were the worst sinners. St Paul, the Apostle was a major prosecutor of Christians before his conversion. St. Mary Magdalene was the famous courtesan (read: prostitute) who became a follower of Jesus. Not exactly shining examples of sainthood, were they? So your bringing up of Angelina’s past is irrelevant. And one other thing, no one has said Angie is a saint, just a woman who is trying to do the best she can to alleviate pain and suffering in the world. And same goes for Madonna, She isn't always right, but I do think she is trying to do something good here, she just went about it the wrong way.

[vballchica134]

Originally Posted by Nitelite

What I don’t understand is why Madonna didn’t get this squared away prior to making move ONE. It makes no sense. Rather than showing the world how adoption can be of aid in perilous circumstances it appears that Madonna may be making it look like a fiasco, which could discourage people.

That's what I don't get either. It sounds like she's really made a mess of the whole thing by adopting from a country that doesn't allow foreign adoptions and also adopting a child with a living father. They may not be making exceptions for her but it sure LOOKS like they are, and I think that's most people's problem with it. Not that she's adopting but that the entire thing just seems fishy.

Here's the latest article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/10/22/malawi.madonna.reut/

[Seapharris7]

^ Well, I wasn’t actually saying Madonna or Jolie-Pitt are saints, it is just how they want to been seen by the public. Or at the very least, how their freakishly devoted fans proclaim they are only out doing good deeds.

But I would have to disagree that Madonna was doing a good thing and went about it wrong. It was not a “mistake” that the camera crews were there, if she didn’t want them there filming her every move or talking about the adoption, then she should have moved the adoption to another time. Instead, without any regard to making sure the biological father FULLY understood what he was doing (because almost 2 weeks later he seems completely confused over what happened) and BOTHERED to make sure that this was a “legal” adoption both in the country where the child was from & the country she is taking the child to, she just DID whatever the hell she wanted to do. Because she is Madonna, and she makes far too much money for what she does and apparently has no idea or intention to care about anyone else but herself.

I think it is abundantly clear her career is going downhill, her marriage obviously has some problems, and THIS was either a spur of the moment pre-menopause-mid-life crisis or her attempt to put a Band-Aid on both her stalling career and stale marriage.

And as you mentioned, usually we don’t hear about the baby until AFTER the adoption - so how did almost 3 whole countries KNOW Madonna was going to pick up a child on her pit-stop to a 3rd world country?
And I believe with Meg Ryan & Angelina there were reports prior to the adoption happening what these actors were doing. HOWEVER, neither Meg nor Angelina had this much of a problem or uproar from several countries. It seems that everyone else can tell Madonna is NOT acting with the best intentions.

[Nitelite]

This comment from Dlisted puts another perspective on Madonna’s adoption issue:
_____________________________________

Star Oct 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 AM

MADONNA is not a stupid woman. She’s often seen as constantly reinventing herself, as though that makes her fake. But her image churn flows from her restless, easily bored mind, rather than a marketing department. There are many clever people out there who are similar, using a quicksilver brain to investigate all the world has to give. Hard to satisfy, they appear dilettantes, cherry-picking the highlights of others’ hard work, surfing the fashion tide rather than putting in the boring graft.
However, when it comes to children, Madonna has put in the hours. Since Rocco was born, almost five years ago, she and Guy Ritchie have talked of wanting a larger family; they’ve been to fertility clinics to try to help things along. It hasn’t happened. But now this long-term quest has dovetailed with Madonna’s interest in Africa. The result: a tasteless media bun fight about whether she should be allowed to fast-track her adoption of a motherless child, rather than a proper discussion about the troubles of the Malawians or about the problems of international or cross-race adoption.

Whose fault is that? Not Madonna’s. Try as she might, she can’t shift the focus away from her celebrity and on more serious issues. She can’t win. If she stays rooted in the West, she’s slated for not caring about anything but herself (remember the controversy when it looked like she wouldn’t appear at Live8?). But now she’s hlighlighting a worthy cause, she’s hammered for being simultaneously cynical and naive, which is quite a feat.

Of course, there are celebrities who do charity because it’s good for their CV. But Madonna only ever makes a fuss about stuff that’s close to her heart: Aids, or Kabbalah. She went to Malawi, gave a lot of money, and wants to set up an Oprhan Care Centre with a local community-based organisation - and she wants the world to acknowledge that country’s plight.

Instead, the world concentrates on her plight, and that of David, her nearly-son. That’s not her problem - it’s ours.

[MrsMarsters]

I honestly believe madonna wants to give that child a better life..and I really DO NOT SEE what is wrong with that..hate to bring up a race issue..but I doubt there would be such an uproar if the child was of a different race! Its a shame.

[serenity]

The sad part about it is the fact that although the child might have lots of material things, the child still won't have a mother. Madonna only cares about herself and her career and what she can do to get publicity. She is not the motherly type and never will be, and who knows if he will even have much of a father with old tag along Guy, who stumbles around in Madonnas shadow.

[vballchica134]

I don't see it being a race issue at all. If she went to another country that didn't allow foreign adoptions and adopted a "white" baby that had a father very confused about the adoption, people would feel the same way. At least I would.

I don't think she's evil for adopting this baby. At least I hope she has the right intentions, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. And even if she doesn't, the baby will have a nanny that will love him a lot. I just think she went about it all wrong.