Adoptions and Orphans

Posts Tagged ‘Madonna’

Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone on August 16, 1958) is an American recording artist, dancer, actress and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan and raised in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Madonna moved to New York City in 1977, for a career in modern dance. After performing as member of the pop musical groups Breakfast Club and Emmy, she released her self-titled debut album in 1983, and then produced three consecutive number-one studio albums on the Billboard 200 in the 1980s and four more since year 2000. Madonna is known for exploring religious symbolism and sexual themes in her work. This drew criticism from the Vatican in the late 1980s.[2] In 1992, she founded an entertainment company, Maverick, which published a book of photographs (Sex). She also released a studio album (Erotica) and starred in a film (Body of Evidence) with erotic themes. These works generated negative publicity and coincided with a fall in commercial sales in the 1990s.[3] Madonna’s career was revived in 1998, when the release of her album Ray of Light garnered critical acclaim. Madonna has acted in 22 films. Although most failed critically and commercially,[4] she earned a Golden Globe Award for her role in the 1996 film Evita. Madonna is divorced from actor Sean Penn and gave birth to a daughter, Lourdes Maria (also known as Lola) in 1996 by her personal trainer Carlos Leon before she was married to film director Guy Ritchie for eight years. She and Ritchie have two sons, Rocco and David …

UNICEF has been waging war against international adoption for many years contrary to popular understanding.  It’s a war with results that fall far short of real time solutions to the spoils of its victories.  UNICEF’s premise that parents in underdeveloped countries should be provided the means to keep their children is not arguable.  Neither is UNICEF’s stance that international adoption should only be a last resort.

However, UNICEF’s tough and effective pressure tactics and  lobbying efforts towards developing nations calling for ratification of the Hague Treaty for the Protection of Children and implementation of adoption law and policy models which effectively serve to close programs completely or almost completely to foreign adopters belies a misguided, unrealistic and out of touch policy contrary to the best interests of hundreds of thousands of legitimately orphaned and abandoned children around the world. These efforts have resulted in the semi or complete closure of adoptions around the world in such countries as Guatemala, Bulgaria, Paraguay, and Romania to mention just a few examples.
 
Let’s take the example of Guatemala.  After intense pressure from UNICEF, Guatemala finally closed its doors to international adoption on December 31, 2008.  Prior to that time, foreign nationals adopted approximately 5,000 Guatemalan children per year.   Oscar Avila, “Guatemala Seeks Domestic Fix to Troubled Overseas Adoptions,” Chicago Tribune, October 26, 2008 indicated that “Guatemala has launched an ambitious campaign to recruit foster parents and even adoptive parents at home.”  So far, the program is failing miserably.  Avila reports, “Only about 45 families in a nation of 13 million currently have taken in foster children since the program began this year.”

The approach that Guatemala is taking by attempting to gain domestic attention to the problem is certainly meritorius; however, this approach could and should have been implemented concomitant with an international program which would ensure that thousands of children will find homes rather than waste away in institutions that are often underfunded, understaffed and unable to provide for the needs of these children.

One of the main criticisms of the Guatemalan adoption program prior to its closure was that it was in the hands of private attorneys who depended on sometimes unscrupulous middlemen to procure birthmothers wanting to give up their children and perhaps those not wanting to give up their children.  Of course this depiction glosses over the nature of how this practice developed in remote villages in Guatemala, far from the lawyers in Guatemala City who could arrange adoptions by foreign nationals.  It was a practical way to connect birthmothers, who were seeking adoption as an option to their usually dire circumstances, to attorneys who could then take the children into custody through the use of foster homes and then place the children with families abroad through adoption proceedings.  It is interesting to note that neither UNICEF nor the Guatemalan government could see that there could be a middle ground to solving the problem of unscrupulous middlemen who were supposedly forcing these women to give up their children, paying the women as an inducement, or even, as many reports claimed, kidnapping these children for adoption.  Many of these reports glossed over the fact that birth mothers had to relinquish their child to an attorney advising her of her rights, undergo an interview with the Family Court, DNA testing of the birth mother and child, review by the Guatemalan Solicitor General’s office, and once again, the birth mother’s consent to the adoption after the Solicitor General’s approval.  The Embassies regularly interviewed birth mothers and conducted investigations at random or of cases that appeared questionable.   During the last year of adoptions in Guatemala, a 2nd DNA test was required at the end of the process based on accusations of child switching with unimpressive findings to back up these wanton allegations. 

Avila’s report indicates that the Guatemalan Department of Social Welfare has now created satellite offices all over the country in an attempt to increase its pool of families interested in fostering or adopting these children.  Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of reform that many adoption attorneys called for which would remove involvement by middlemen but allow attorneys to work with the Department of Social Welfare in concert with its ongoing program to promote foster care and adoption domestically.  UNICEF would not come to the table nor would the Guatemalan government which was eager to completely shut the door on international adoption in response to UNICEF’s strong and effective lobbying efforts.

Another example of misguided criticism regarding international adoption is in Malawi, where the infamous Madonna adoption took place.  Malawi is a country of 13 million and approximately 1 million are orphans half of which are “AIDS orphans”. Solutions are slow in coming in a nation beset by an AIDS epidemic infecting almost one fouth of its population.   These orphaned children deserve a chance at having permanent homes and families.  International adoption is not a perfect solution to the problem in Malawi and so many other nations of Africa but it saves lives, gives children a chance, one adoption at a time.

Of course, most would agree that international adoption should not be the sole answer to poverty faced by nations around the world.  No rational person would think so.  International adoption should be seen as a stopgap emergency measure taken while the United Nations, human rights groups, humanitarian organizations and the governments of these underdeveloped countries seek answers to the abject poverty, high birth rates, AIDS epidemic, malnutrition, lack of education, lack of women’s rights, and massive unemployment which lead to parents making these hard decisions about the future of their offspring.  International adoption is one temporary cog in the wheel.  UNICEF and other detractors and critics of international adoption have continually failed to recognize the vital emergency role of international adoption and how compromise and middle ground solutions could serve the orphaned and abandoned children.

It is said that children those who become devoid of parental love become close to God and become His favorite children. They become special in the eyes of the God and are always blessed with some other alternatives to foster their childhood. Those children are considered to be the lucky souls, who are provided with a new life, along with a new family. They do not remain homeless any more and get their own cocoons, where they happily fit into. How does this miracle happen? How do these orphans get a new home and a name? Yes, it’s the sole effort of an international adoption agency, which is in constant effort to render a fresh and secured future to such pristine souls. It is like the God sent angel for these innocent lives, whose fortune is abruptly struck with a lucky star. Such type of organization is always in a bid to serve goodness through their motives.

International adoption agency is one such charity institution, which aims in playing the role of a noble savior, who gives a new life to a fondling child. The orphan is enabled to be introduced with his/her new parents and family, who would never have existed in his/her life, if such type of NGOs would not have been set up. These ragamuffins, who were naive about the real meaning of family, get to understand its value. They learn the value of society. They realize that they are also a part of this society and they have also been assigned with specific roles to play. Fosterage is not about finding orphans for families, it is about fetching families for these ragamuffins. This is the reason, why even international celebrities are more actively involved in serving these homeless children. The world’s most celebrated couple Brangelina and Madonna has already initiated this noble step and has become inspiration for others too.

Various countries have set up a distinctive rule for foreign adoption. But every country has been liberal in the norms and conditions in order to encourage more and more foreigners to foster their fondling children. However, the international adoption agencies follow certain criteria, in order to safeguard the future of these innocent lives.

Madonna has reportedly persuaded three Malawian Supreme Court of Appeal judges to approve her bid to adopt four-year-old orphan Mercy James. VISIT www.pop-videos.com FOR MORE DETAILS! Madonna’s appeal to adopt another Malawian orphan has been successful. The 50-year-old singer – whose bid to give a home to four-year-old Mercy James was rejected in March – has reportedly persuaded three Supreme Court of Appeal judges to approve the adoption. Two judges have already submitted reports recommending Madonna be granted custody of Mercy, and the third is said to be “in complete unison with them”. The ruling is set to be announced in court in the African nation’s capital Lilongwe on Sunday (14.06.09). A Court of Appeal source told Britain’s The Sun newspaper: “The paperwork is being typed up now. All recommendations are in favour of the adoption taking place. Mercy should start packing her bags. She’s off to America.” Madonna – who was photographed sobbing in public days after her initial adoption bid was denied – is thrilled with the decision. A friend of the pop star said: “She’s ecstatic. She made a promise that she wouldn’t give up on Mercy and, believe me, she could move mountains when she’s this determined. No stone has been left unturned to prove that ruling was wrong.” The star’s adoption application was initially rejected because she had not lived in Malawi for a minimum of 18 months, as the country’s adoption laws require. The rule was swept aside when Madonna adopted …

can any one tell me about some international adoptions out side the US, other than madonna and angelina jolie

People…get it together My Sites! www.kiannaluv21.com Stalk me http Join the family! iheartme.ning.com Add me http

UNICEF has been waging war against international adoption for many years contrary to popular understanding.  It’s a war with results that fall far short of real time solutions to the spoils of its victories.  UNICEF’s premise that parents in underdeveloped countries should be provided the means to keep their children is not arguable.  Neither is UNICEF’s stance that international adoption should only be a last resort.

However, UNICEF’s tough and effective pressure tactics and  lobbying efforts towards developing nations calling for ratification of the Hague Treaty for the Protection of Children and implementation of adoption law and policy models which effectively serve to close programs completely or almost completely to foreign adopters belies a misguided, unrealistic and out of touch policy contrary to the best interests of hundreds of thousands of legitimately orphaned and abandoned children around the world. These efforts have resulted in the semi or complete closure of adoptions around the world in such countries as Guatemala, Bulgaria, Paraguay, and Romania to mention just a few examples.
 
Let’s take the example of Guatemala.  After intense pressure from UNICEF, Guatemala finally closed its doors to international adoption on December 31, 2008.  Prior to that time, foreign nationals adopted approximately 5,000 Guatemalan children per year.   Oscar Avila, “Guatemala Seeks Domestic Fix to Troubled Overseas Adoptions,” Chicago Tribune, October 26, 2008 indicated that “Guatemala has launched an ambitious campaign to recruit foster parents and even adoptive parents at home.”  So far, the program is failing miserably.  Avila reports, “Only about 45 families in a nation of 13 million currently have taken in foster children since the program began this year.”

The approach that Guatemala is taking by attempting to gain domestic attention to the problem is certainly meritorius; however, this approach could and should have been implemented concomitant with an international program which would ensure that thousands of children will find homes rather than waste away in institutions that are often underfunded, understaffed and unable to provide for the needs of these children.

One of the main criticisms of the Guatemalan adoption program prior to its closure was that it was in the hands of private attorneys who depended on sometimes unscrupulous middlemen to procure birthmothers wanting to give up their children and perhaps those not wanting to give up their children.  Of course this depiction glosses over the nature of how this practice developed in remote villages in Guatemala, far from the lawyers in Guatemala City who could arrange adoptions by foreign nationals.  It was a practical way to connect birthmothers, who were seeking adoption as an option to their usually dire circumstances, to attorneys who could then take the children into custody through the use of foster homes and then place the children with families abroad through adoption proceedings.  It is interesting to note that neither UNICEF nor the Guatemalan government could see that there could be a middle ground to solving the problem of unscrupulous middlemen who were supposedly forcing these women to give up their children, paying the women as an inducement, or even, as many reports claimed, kidnapping these children for adoption.  Many of these reports glossed over the fact that birth mothers had to relinquish their child to an attorney advising her of her rights, undergo an interview with the Family Court, DNA testing of the birth mother and child, review by the Guatemalan Solicitor General’s office, and once again, the birth mother’s consent to the adoption after the Solicitor General’s approval.  The Embassies regularly interviewed birth mothers and conducted investigations at random or of cases that appeared questionable.   During the last year of adoptions in Guatemala, a 2nd DNA test was required at the end of the process based on accusations of child switching with unimpressive findings to back up these wanton allegations. 

Avila’s report indicates that the Guatemalan Department of Social Welfare has now created satellite offices all over the country in an attempt to increase its pool of families interested in fostering or adopting these children.  Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of reform that many adoption attorneys called for which would remove involvement by middlemen but allow attorneys to work with the Department of Social Welfare in concert with its ongoing program to promote foster care and adoption domestically.  UNICEF would not come to the table nor would the Guatemalan government which was eager to completely shut the door on international adoption in response to UNICEF’s strong and effective lobbying efforts.

Another example of misguided criticism regarding international adoption is in Malawi, where the infamous Madonna adoption took place.  Malawi is a country of 13 million and approximately 1 million are orphans half of which are “AIDS orphans”. Solutions are slow in coming in a nation beset by an AIDS epidemic infecting almost one fouth of its population.   These orphaned children deserve a chance at having permanent homes and families.  International adoption is not a perfect solution to the problem in Malawi and so many other nations of Africa but it saves lives, gives children a chance, one adoption at a time.

Of course, most would agree that international adoption should not be the sole answer to poverty faced by nations around the world.  No rational person would think so.  International adoption should be seen as a stopgap emergency measure taken while the United Nations, human rights groups, humanitarian organizations and the governments of these underdeveloped countries seek answers to the abject poverty, high birth rates, AIDS epidemic, malnutrition, lack of education, lack of women’s rights, and massive unemployment which lead to parents making these hard decisions about the future of their offspring.  International adoption is one temporary cog in the wheel.  UNICEF and other detractors and critics of international adoption have continually failed to recognize the vital emergency role of international adoption and how compromise and middle ground solutions could serve the orphaned and abandoned children.

I was just wondering because in reading this page about Madonna she was telling how many orphans will never have parents and they are so pitiful. Where would I find out how many there are?

Most of what we know of adoption we get from the media or from our past. We see Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopting kids from around the globe. We remember adopted kids from our childhood neighborhood. But neither is a true picture of adoption today.

There are many myths and mistruths out there concerning adoption, and domestic adoption in particular. Families considering adoption need to know the facts in order to make an informed choice.

Myth #1 – Most Birth Mothers are Teenagers

When you think of adoption, do you picture the pregnant high school girl in the movie Juno? In reality, most birth mothers who choose adoption for their child are between 19 and 30 years old. Many are already single mothers who understand the realities and sacrifices involved in raising a child and choose adoption to give their child a better life. Adoption is a mature and loving choice and many birth mothers want an active role in their adoption plan.

Myth #2 – There are No Healthy Babies to Adopt in the U.S.

Tens of thousands of healthy newborn babies are adopted each year in the U.S – that’s as many, if not more, than the number of international adoptions. The myth that the only infants available for adoption in the U.S. are drug-exposed is simply false. Most women considering adoption for their child are not using drugs and are receiving prenatal care. In fact, babies placed for adoption are just as healthy as all other babies born in the U.S.

Myth #3 – The Adoption Process Takes Many Years

With domestic adoption, the timeframe is unpredictable because it depends on when you’re chosen by a prospective birth mother. Depending on the quality of the profile you create and how open you are to different situations, many domestic adoptions can be completed in only a few months.

Myth #4 – The Birth Mother Can Show Up and Ask for the Baby Back

If an adoption is done legally, through reputable attorneys and agencies, the adoptive parents have full parental rights as soon as the adoption is finalized. Before finalization, some states have a revocation period during which the birth mother can revoke her consent but adoptive families can assess the risks on a case-by-case basis before entering into an agreement. Other states don’t have any revocation period at all. Despite the publicity surrounding a few high-profile cases, post-adoption revocations are extremely rare.

Myth #5 – Closed Adoptions are Better (or Vice Versa)

Adoption isn’t a one-size-fits all arrangement. Some families do great with open adoption, while closed adoption is better for others. There are options available and varying levels of openness so each family can choose what type of adoption is best for them.

Myth #6 — Adopted Children are Emotionally Unstable or Have Behavior Issues

Research shows that adopted children are as well adjusted as their non-adopted peers. Some studies even indicate that adopted children are better adjusted due to the fact that adoptive parents tend to be mature and financially stable. As with all children, some are very talented or brilliant and some are less capable and have more factors pre-disposing them to potential difficulties. Most adopted people fall within the normal range.

Myth #7 – All Adoptions are Expensive

The cost of adoption varies greatly. Domestic adoptions can cost less than $10,000 and as much as $40,000. As an adoption consultant, most of the adoptions I see are of healthy, Caucasian newborns and the costs usually range from $25,000 to $35,000. Adopting an older child can be significantly less expensive and there are foster adoption programs in many states that can involve little, if any money. Starting in 2009, the government will offer new adoptive parents a tax credit of up to $12,150 that can help to significantly defray the costs.

These are just a few of the pervasive myths that often cloud the decision-making process for pre-adoptive families. There are many factors that go into a couple’s decisions regarding adoption. Fortunately, there are many resources and much support available to prospective adoptive parents to gain information and prepare them for the challenges and joys adoption can bring to their lives.