Strollerderby : david banda

The Orphan Trade and International Adoption

Madeline Holler — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:26:00 GMT

E.J. Graff has investigated and written extensively about international adoption, and what she has found is hardly a feel-good story of child rescue. Rather, she concludes that hopeful parents from wealthy nations (the U.S., European countries, Australia) have created a market where babies are bought and sold.

Here's what she has to say, in a New York Times editorial, about international adoption and Madonna's latest attempt to add to her family.

But in trying to adopt a child who already has a family, Madonna is inadvertently exposing the seamier underside of international adoption: the fact that, too often, the amounts of money that Western adoption agencies spend in poor countries is helping to defraud, coerce or kidnap children away from families that wanted to raise them to adulthood.

Graff writes that happy families created in the adoptive countries have, in countless instances, left anguished ones in search of their missing children. Even more heartbreaking is that families who search for -- and, against all odds, eventually find -- their stolen children aren't necessarily reunited with them. So has been the case of a number of children born in Nepal and adopted in Spain.

In a slideshow on Slate, Graff tells the stories of some of the families who were affected by an often corrupt international adoption system.

So how has this happened? With millions of abandoned babies and toddlers throughout the world, how could a baby-selling market thrive? For starters, those millions of babies? Total myth, Graff writes.

From Slate:

Westerners have been sold a myth that poor countries have millions of healthy abandoned infants and toddlers who need homes. But it's not so. In poor countries, as in rich ones, healthy babies are rarely orphaned or given up—except in China, where girls have been abandoned as a result of its draconian one-child policy.

Yes, tens of thousands of needy children around the world—many languishing in horrible institutions—do need families. But most children who need new homes are older than 5, sick, disabled, or somehow traumatized. Quite reasonably, most prospective Western parents don't feel prepared to take on those more challenging kids, preferring to wait in line for healthy infants or toddlers.

The result is a gap between supply and demand—a gap that's closed by Western money. Adoption agencies spend sums in-country that are enormous compared with local per-capita incomes. In poor countries without effective regulation or protections for the poor, that can induce locals to buy, coerce, defraud, and kidnap healthy children away from their birth families for sale into international adoption.

To use the language of globalization, orphans are sometimes "manufactured": Children with families are stripped of their identities so that Westerners can fill their homes....

Families who lost their children aren't the only ones who suffered. More than one adoptive family has found out -- once their child learned English -- the circumstances they truly left behind, including a mother, father and siblings.

Still, others argue that shutting down international adoption ignores the needs of children who truly are abandoned or facing a childhood of institutional living. Four others who work in adoption or study the laws and consequences weigh in on the international adoption in the Times "Room for Debate" feature. Some argue, like Graff, that a lack of oversight and regulation has created this baby market. Others defend Madonna and other families who look overseas for children, saying forget politics, forget money, these kids just need a loving home.

Be sure to check out antiracistparent.com for arguments against Graff's conclusions.

Second Parent Adoption Legislation Moving in Michigan

Crocheted Doll Gives Birth

Should You Take Your Bump on a Date?

Mother-to-Be: Save The Baby's Life, Not Mine

They Say: Episiotomy Rate ... Cut!

Photos: NY Times, Slate

Possible Father of Malawian Orphan Opposes Madonna Adoption

Brett Singer — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:00:00 GMT

James Kambewa might be the father of Chifundo "Mercy" James, the girl that Madonna wants to adopt. And he's decided that he can take care of her. He feels that his little girl should be "raised as a Malawian", according to BBC News. So Madonna should step off.

I say "might" because it's not clear that the man is, in fact, Mercy's dad. In an interview with 'The Early Show' on CBS, he said that "he wore a necklace bearing his daughter's name around his neck, even though he had never seen her in person." He said that he wants "to take care of her, and I'm capable to take care of my baby." A big question, of course, is why Mercy was in an orphanage if she had a parent "capable" of raising her.

The whole thing is getting somewhat silly. Personally, I think Madonna should be able to adopt Mercy James, because that would mean a much better life for the girl. A court ruled that the adoption wasn't legal (Madonna's appeal will be heard on Monday), but if that's true, how was she able to adopt David Banda?

I'm not going to get into a debate about Malawian legal matters. I just think that it would be too bad if this little girl is forced to live in an orphanage when she could have moved into the lap of luxury. Especially if the only reason her dad came forward is because there were TV cameras around.

Source: BBC

More Stuff Hip, Urban Parents Like

Australian Kiddie Show Star Appears In Laddie Mag

What Burlesque Can Teach Your Daughter

5 Year Old Mexican Boy Could Be First To Have Swine Flu

12 Year Old Knocks Em Dead On Britain's Got Talent

Skip The Cereal, Buy The Marshmallows

Does Madonna Spank Her Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:00:00 GMT

Somewhat buried in the news about Madonna's adopted son David Banda meeting up with his biological father in Malawi was this little tidbit (this is David's dad Yohane talking about his chat with David):

He told me his mum likes riding horses and that he too rides horses. Then he told me a story when one day he and his brother, Rocco, rode horses and fell. He told me his mum spanked him because they are not supposed to ride horses on their own. (Emphasis added)

Whoa, Nellie! Hang on a minute. Madonna spanked him?

Well, maybe. When I first saw this, Shannon pointed out that sometimes little kids exaggerate. I've never hit either of my children but my oldest once informed someone that I had. Somewhat out of the blue, I might add. Luckily it was a person who was inclined to take my word for it (a relative). But if it had been a teacher, I don't know how that would have gone over.

Still, it's interesting to think about. Do you think Madonna spanks her kids? Or maybe she has the nanny do it? Or is David just a little kid exaggerating?

Source: PerezHilton

Homebirthing Advocate's Baby Dies During Homebirth

Another Country Joins the Ban Against Corporal Punishment

Madonna/Angelina Dichotomy: Why is Adoption Okay for One Star but not the Other?

Peeper Madness - Supeep Court

Texas School Accused Of Student Cage Fighting

Jimmy Kimmel And The Octomom

Madonna Adoption Denied, Appeal Filed

Brett Singer — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:00:00 GMT

A Malawi court ruled on Friday that Madonna could not adopt 4-year-old Mercy James because she had not been a resident of the country for 18 months.

As my son sometimes says, "I didn't see that coming."

Why do I say that? Well, here's the thing. She already adopted a kid from Malawi. David Banda. Remember him? Cute kid, rides horses, visited his hometown with Madge so he could hang with his biological dad?

According to the Telegraph, the rule about adoptive parents being residents of Malawai for 18-24 months was waived back in 2006 to allow Madge to adopt David. Now a local judge is concerned about setting a "dangerous precedent" if she is allowed to adopt again.

Except that the precedent was already set! You let her do it before! When you train puppies, or discipline children, you try to be consistent. I know that's an oversimplification, but isn't it silly to talk about "dangerous precedents" when you already did the thing that you now say you are worried about?

That could be why Madonna has decided to appeal the ruling. I don't know much about the law, and I know even less about Malawian legal issues (to be fair, I probably know more about brain surgery than I do about Malawian legal issues), but it seems to me that she's got a pretty good case. Because they let her adopt David Banda in 2006. Did I mention that?

It's possible that the adoption was denied because of Madonna's recent divorce from Guy Ritchie. The Telegraph quotes a government official as saying that, "Our official policy is that we do not encourage our children to be sent into broken homes." Because being raised by a single parent is clearly much worse than living in an orphanage. Never mind the fact that this particular single parent is wealthier than most of the people on the planet. And while I agree in general with human rights groups who have been saying that "whisking a single child off to a fairytale lifestyle in Hollywood" is not the answer to the world's problems, it's also not the worst thing that could happen to a kid from an impoverished country. (It's also worth noting that Madonna lives in England, not Hollywood. But whatever.)

I should point out that this is not, in my opinion, a major issue in our world today. But everything Madonna does is news, and while I don't care much about her music (or her movies, which, except for "Desperately Seeking Susan" are considerable unwatchable), I have to give her credit for commanding attention with every move she makes. I'll also give her props for starting a charity, Raising Malawi, to help other orphans in Malawi. According to the Telegraph, "She has already built a multi-purpose community centre at Mphandula village, 30 miles from Lilongwe, which looks after more than 8,000 orphans from scores of villages in the area." That's a lot of kids. So, in the language of her adopted British homeland, good on ya, mate. (Or something like that.) Of course, as Shannon pointed out, it's fine for Angelina Jolie to adopt a kid every other week, but Madonna we have a problem with. That's another topic, but one worth mentioning.

What do you think? Should Madonna be allowed to adopt Mercy James?

Source: Telegraph

What Do Madonna and Peanut Butter Have in Common?

Family Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

Gloria Allred Sits On A Booster Seat

Open Letter To The Woman Who Pushed Me While I Was Picking Up My Kid

Madonna/Angelina Dichotomy: Why is Adoption Okay for One Star but not the Other?

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:00:00 GMT

This is something I just don't get. Why is it that Angelina Jolie is supposed to be a saint for adopting children from poor countries while Madonna is criticized for same?

All the pros and cons of international adoption aside (it has well justified groups of both supporters and detractors), it seems that when Jolie swoops into a country and adopts a child, she is considered to be, well, some kind of Madonna, whereas when, er, Madonna goes to Malawi and adopts, leaving an NGO to support the entire country's children in her wake, she gets all kinds of push-back from the press who bother to ask international adoption critics what they think. For example, a UK charity, Save the Children spokesperson commenting on Madonna's plan to adopt a Malawian sister for David said "You cannot literally take every poor child who may only have one parent living, or no parent living, across the world and transport them all into Kensington in London. It's not a solution." Well, duh, hence Madonna's NGO.

I am awfully sympathetic to the view that that children should, whenever possible, stay in the countries and/or communities of their birth and be cared for by their own relatives or at least community members who share their cultural origins. I chose domestic open adoption to make sure my own kids would not lose contact with their biological and cultural origins. But I'm also sympathetic to the fact that Madonna, having adopted one child from Malawi, sees the need for him to have another member of his family share his background. I'm a transracially adoptive mother of two, (rather than one) for similar reasons.

There is some pretty good evidence that the orphanage where Jolie adopted son, Maddox, is corrupt in its practices, perhaps manufacturing "orphans" for lucrative international adoption placements. Madonna's adoption of son, David (who retains his original surname, Banda), was a case in which no one pretended the child didn't have living relatives--indeed he has a father who apparently visited David in the orphanage regularly and agreed to his adoption. Madonna has taken David to visit his biological father on several occasions since his adoption. In fact, she seems to be doing international adoption as well as it can be done.

Now mind you, I pity any child raised by a celebrity, regardless of how she ended up in the family. I can't imagine a much worse environment for a kid, except perhaps an orphanage--but even that would depend on the orphanage. I'm neither advocating, nor poo-pooing Jolie or Madonna's adopting ways. And I'm not a big fan of either of them. I simply don't understand why the media treats them so differently when it comes to their children.

Is it age? Madonna is fifty while Angelina is 30-something. Is it public image? I didn't think Jolie's celebrity identity was all that squeaky clean before she started having kids, am I wrong? Maybe people just don't like Madonna. Maybe they just like Jolie.

Then again, maybe the strong light cast on Madonna's first adoption, in which questions were raised about the biological father's consent and the laws of Malawi has allowed people to see the complexity of international adoption in a way that Jolie's less publicized adoption details do not. But the fact is that all adoption is fraught with controversial details and questions about what is truly in a child's best interest. All adoptions raise the spectral question of how to help all the children who are left in need, and not adopted; of how to help parents and communities keep their own children and raise them to healthy adulthood. No adoption is pure and uncomplicated. Not the purest, least complicated one. Madonna deserves no more criticism than I do, or than any adoptive parent does. But all members of wealthy societies--adoptive parents or otherwise--need to take a look at their own culpability in perpetuating systems and governments that render some parents and children so desperate that adoption becomes their best option.

Suri Cruise: Most Powerful Child On The Planet

Brett Singer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:10:00 GMT

This is such an odd piece of news.

Suri Cruise, daughter of Tom "Who Needs Doctors When You Can Take Vitamins" Cruise and Katie "Is She Being Held Prisoner" Holmes has been declared "most influential celebrity kid". Now what is the source of this important ranking? Us Magazine perhaps? The National Enquirer?

No. Forbes magazine. Malcolm must be spinning in his grave.

What method did they use? According to MyHollywood.com, "financial investigators studied Internet presence and press clippings for more than 50 A-list offspring aged five years younger over the course of the last year…used a market research company to gauge the awareness of the kids and consumer-appeal of their celebrity parents." Suri won, with appearances in "more than 2,000 articles over the course of the year."

Here's the top ten if you're curious:

1. Suri Cruise
2. Shiloh Jolie-Pitt
3. Zahara Jolie-Pitt
4. Pax Jolie-Pitt
5. Sam Alexis Woods
6. Cruz Beckham
7. Matilda Rose Ledger
8. David Banda
9. Sean Preston Federline
10. Sam Sheen

By the way, I had to look up Sam Sheen (that's the offspring of Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen). So I feel slightly better about myself.

I have a thought. Why would a celebrity parent want their child to get this much exposure? Is it at all possible to keep kids out of the papers when you're this famous? In the case of a Suri Cruise or any of the Jolie-Pitts, wouldn't it be safer to lay low a little bit? Or does it matter in the age of social networking, photo sharing, and MyFaceSpaceBook?

Plus, this idea of "influential" seems questionable. Would you buy something because Suri Cruise endorsed it?

She is a cute little girl though. Maybe she could do Gap ads or something.

Last thought: How would you handle this sort of thing if you were mega-famous? I'm not sure what I would do, although it's not likely to be a problem in my life. My movie career began and ended when I auditioned for "Adventures in Babysitting" in the 80's.

Source/Images: MyHollywood, Famecrawler

Matt Lauer Talks To Sarah Palin In The Kitchen

World Famous Atheist To Write Children's Book

How do we love Michelle Obama? Let us count the ways!

Rocco Ritchie wears Yankee shirt, Guy Ritchie weeps

Top Hollywood Tot: Miss Suri Cruise

Disney Pulls Hannah Montana Diabetes Episode

Comedians From The Past Weigh In On The First Black President

Madonna and Adopted Son Visit His Father. Finally.

Karen Murphy — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:25:00 GMT

Today, Madonna and her newly-adopted son David Banda flew to the impoverished African country of Malawi and ostensibly will negotiate some visitation between 14-month old David and his father, who has had no contact with the boy since Madonna took him away to London six months ago. Just as of last week, biological dad Yohande Banda repeated his January plea and asked to hear some word about little David from his new mum, but he doesn't appear to be on the A-list when it comes to Madonna's personal phone number. Or even on the recipient list for a form letter: "Dear ___, My new son is fab! He is studying kabbalah already and looks great in his new red bracelet! Smooches, M."

Malawi child-welfare officials are set to report on Madonna's and husband Guy Ritchie's suitability as adoptive parents of little David after two visits to their London home. Is it any coincidence then that Madonna's Malawi visit will also include charitable work surrounding the building of orphanages? ("Dear David Banda, You were totally worth all the money I had to spend to ~~buy~~ get you, even though I had to build several buildings to do so. It's only money anyway! Love, Your Fabulous Mum")

[photo credit: AP]

Marriage in Trouble? Adopt an African Child!

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:08:00 GMT

I guess Madonna and Guy Ritchie didn't read my post last week about how having a baby causes stress. These two say that adopting David Banda I (it just kills me that adopted someone who already had parents) from Africa has given them a spark.

Hmph. Maybe if we were all rich enough to have a fully time nanny (or two) and other people to do our laundry and cook for us and all of the other small things that took up all of my free time when I first gave birth I would have had time to plan a second honeymoon too.

Or maybe they are just basking in the glow of self-righteousness. I hear that can be a real aphrodisiac.

The Mommy Wars: Angelina, Madonna and Me

Alisyn — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:30:00 GMT

You know what I hate? The Mommy Wars. Stay-at-Home vs. Working moms. Attachment vs. Waldorf vs. "I got spanked and I turned out fine!" moms. Homeschooling vs. Unschooling vs. Charter schooling moms. Oh, do you not feel welcome among any of the aforementioned warring mom factions? Okay - how 'bout if we add to the fray a new and completely media driven battleground: Adoptive Celebrity moms vs... uh, other adoptive celebrity moms.

Sunday's Daily Mail, a British tabloid, reports that the world's most famous adoptive mom, Angelina Jolie, is unhappy with new adoptive mom Madonna's decision to quasi-adopt a semi-orphan from Malawi, a country in which there is no legal adoption process. The paper quotes Jolie as saying "Personally, I prefer to stay on the right side of the law. I would never take a child away from a place where adoption is illegal." (Human rights groups are still investigating whether Madonna used her 1 million pound "donation" to the orphanage where 1 year-old David lived, to bypass laws prohibiting foreigners from adopting Malawians).

Yeah, the Madonna thing is totally fishy. My guess is that Angelina probably felt some sort of obligation to stand up and stay "there's a right way and a wrong way to this this, people," because, let's face it - she is the global face of adoption. But the bottom line is that, because of Madonna, conceited and misguided though she may be, there is one less African child living in an overburdened, underfunded orphanage. Because of Madonna, there is one more young African man in the world with unlimited opportunities and a loving home and family. And everyone knows it.

Now, I do not defend Madonna's shady dealings - but, seriously? What is more important,here? Even young David's biological father, Yohane Banda, who relinquished his son since he could not afford to care for him says "As David's father, I have no problem with (the adoption). What I want is a good life, a good ecducation for my child." The very same article that claims that Angelina is "attacking" Madonna quotes her saying "I have been horrified by the attacks (Madonna) has been subjected to. All that should count is the happiness of little David."

Ouch! Quite the scathing commentary, eh? What a bitchfest. CATFIGHT!! Come on. Give me a fucking break. The Mommy Wars are raging - we know. Vegetarian Moms hate/resent/insert-angry-verb-here Hamburger Moms - we know. Adoptive Actress Moms totally kick the asses of Adoptive Musician Moms - we know. We know because bullshit mainstream media publications tell us all the time.

But the war stops today if we stop it. The Soccer Moms and the Baseball Moms become friends today, if we want it. The M.I.L.F.s and the Mom Jeans coexist peacefully - happily! - if we make it happen. And we can. Because we're moms. Because whether you are a birth mother or an adoptive mother, a celebrity or struggling single mom, you're a mom. We are caring for the children of the world, and we are amazing. And though that simple fact is not enough to sell magazines or self-help books, it's enough to change the way the world looks at us, if we believe in it, and in each other. Cheesy but true.