Babies as Fashion Accessories?
Did anyone else watch Friday's episode of Law and Order (entitled "Charity Case")? It dealt with the idea of celebrities adopting children internationally either to boost their career or to jump on the latest trend "bandwagon."
It was an interesting show, and it had me thinking about the question, has international adoption become a Hollywood trend?
We discussed Angelina Jolie earlier this week, and clearly, she has brought international adoption into the limelight with the additions of Maddox (Cambodia) and Zahara (Ethiopia) into her family. However, due to her work with the UN helping orphaned and refugee children, I don't think she adopted her kids to be fashionable or to boost her image. Of course, that is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Madonna, on the other hand, is a separate issue. It doesn't seem that her adoption of a little boy from Malawi was done entirely legally, and the fact that the father made public statements about his child being taken from him (which he later recanted) are upsetting. According to the US Department of State, "Adoptive parents must foster a prospective adoptive child for 24 months in Malawi before an adoption may be finalized" (see this link for more info). Clearly, Madonna did not do this - she may have taken the boy to England early to receive medical treatment he could not get in Africa. Would she have stayed in Malawi for the required amount of time had the child been healthy? I admit that I don't know much about her adoption or the reasons behind it, but I do know that it stirred up a controversy that had people referring to the legal adoption of international orphans as "foreigners buying children." It was her adoption that was the the inspiration for Friday's episode of Law and Order.
In this episode, a woman whose career was in need of a boost, adopted a little boy from an African country that had very few international adoption guidelines. One of the laws it did have regarding foreign adoptions was that the adoptive parent had to live with the child in-country for a year. The celebrity did not do this, and the child's father resorted to drastic measures to see his son after he was taken from his homeland prematurely.
The show was very dramatic of course, and it's conclusion in no way represents events that actually occurred in real life. However, the ADA's comments about babies becoming fashion accessories brought to mind people like Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears who have both recently said that they want to adopt a baby internationally (see here and here).
As a person who has adopted children internationally (and legally), enduring months of waiting, endless paperwork, and background checks into my suitability as a parent in order to fulfill my dream of becoming a mother, the idea of celebrities adopting babies to follow some "trend" is disturbing. Will these children, adopted from orphanages as a philanthropic statement, truly be better off? Maybe. Will they have more advantages and opportunities for a healthy life than they would have in their home country? Most definitely.
It's a tricky issue for me, and one I feel more than a little uncomfortable with when I examine it too closely. What are your thoughts on the issue? If you saw the episode of Law and Order, what did you think of it?
It was an interesting show, and it had me thinking about the question, has international adoption become a Hollywood trend?
We discussed Angelina Jolie earlier this week, and clearly, she has brought international adoption into the limelight with the additions of Maddox (Cambodia) and Zahara (Ethiopia) into her family. However, due to her work with the UN helping orphaned and refugee children, I don't think she adopted her kids to be fashionable or to boost her image. Of course, that is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Madonna, on the other hand, is a separate issue. It doesn't seem that her adoption of a little boy from Malawi was done entirely legally, and the fact that the father made public statements about his child being taken from him (which he later recanted) are upsetting. According to the US Department of State, "Adoptive parents must foster a prospective adoptive child for 24 months in Malawi before an adoption may be finalized" (see this link for more info). Clearly, Madonna did not do this - she may have taken the boy to England early to receive medical treatment he could not get in Africa. Would she have stayed in Malawi for the required amount of time had the child been healthy? I admit that I don't know much about her adoption or the reasons behind it, but I do know that it stirred up a controversy that had people referring to the legal adoption of international orphans as "foreigners buying children." It was her adoption that was the the inspiration for Friday's episode of Law and Order.
In this episode, a woman whose career was in need of a boost, adopted a little boy from an African country that had very few international adoption guidelines. One of the laws it did have regarding foreign adoptions was that the adoptive parent had to live with the child in-country for a year. The celebrity did not do this, and the child's father resorted to drastic measures to see his son after he was taken from his homeland prematurely.
The show was very dramatic of course, and it's conclusion in no way represents events that actually occurred in real life. However, the ADA's comments about babies becoming fashion accessories brought to mind people like Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears who have both recently said that they want to adopt a baby internationally (see here and here).
As a person who has adopted children internationally (and legally), enduring months of waiting, endless paperwork, and background checks into my suitability as a parent in order to fulfill my dream of becoming a mother, the idea of celebrities adopting babies to follow some "trend" is disturbing. Will these children, adopted from orphanages as a philanthropic statement, truly be better off? Maybe. Will they have more advantages and opportunities for a healthy life than they would have in their home country? Most definitely.
It's a tricky issue for me, and one I feel more than a little uncomfortable with when I examine it too closely. What are your thoughts on the issue? If you saw the episode of Law and Order, what did you think of it?
Jenni, i could have written your post, I too feel that sometimes if I examine too closely I feel unease. I restle with my feelings all the time. I think very often we think of adoption as finding children for families, but I know it has to be about finding families for children. The other day I asked myself 'If I met my child's birthmother, prior to adoption and knew the reason she was placing her child up for adoption was poverty, what would I do?'. I hope I would try to see if there was a way I could help the family as opposed to just the child, I hope that in my heart of hearts I would find a way.
I think adoption is the most wonderful way to create a family. I always like to see the best reasons behind adoption, but sadly sometimes something reminds me of there perhaps being some negative reasons. I think 99% of the people adopting do it for the right reasons, but sadly sometimes I am reminded of the fact that there are a few out there that don't. I happened across a blog today that made me feel ill, it was an adoption blog and the woman basically said she was adopting from china, because they wanted a white child, and since they couldn't 'get one' they decided the colour of an asian child was less offensive than darker skinned kids. She then hid behind her religion, said 'I'm not racist but...' so yes, it is that adoption is not always child centred but I do believe for almost all of us adoption isn't simply about 'jumping on the bandwagon'.
Great post!
p.s. Gotta love how Law and Order always bases it's plots losely on real life issues!
I agree that Jolie and Madonna are different cases. I wish Madonna would have followed the laws of the country.
Mary, mom to many, including 2 from Ethiopia
I didn't see the episode you mentioned. I think, as is often the case, a few ill-intentioned (or, shall we say, misguided?) individuals have made things much more difficult for those of us who are well-intentioned. I fight the sterotypical "American" battles often--though much less than I had to in the UK. Now I have the "International Adopter" bad press to counter, too. (Of course, this is all about me. ;> ) It is a complex issue. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, it will be the children who will suffer for adults actions.
Children are a responsibility, not a piece of bling to show off and parade around. Children need love and nurturing. Even the thought of it being "trendy" bothers me. The worst part is that trends fade. What happens then?
What will these children be like in 10 years, 20 years?
I am so thankful for all of the adoptive parents who really love children and have taken this path because of that fact. They are committed to raising them with every bit of love and care that they can muster. These are the ones that should be shown as adoption examples, just like you, Jenni, and the host of others.
You all make interesting comments, and I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who struggles with some of the issues surrounding international adoption. I agree that adoption is a wonderful way to build a family and that the majority of us do it because we love children and want both what they bring to our family and what we can give to them.
I also like 6blessings' point about trends fading. Trends may fade, but children do not. You cannot donate them to Goodwill along with the rest of last season's "accessories." My one hope is that anyone thinking to adopt internationally just because it seems like the "in" thing to do, winds up discouraged by the process and either takes the idea of parenting a child seriously, or gives up and lets that child find a more deserving family.