Another high profile adoption case, another celebrity runs into adoption problems due to certain legislation. This time it’s the British rock singer songwriter Elton John who is having problems. John met 14-month old Lev during an AIDS charity foundation trip in the Ukraine. While visiting an orphanage specially set up for HIV- positive children John fell in love with the boy and decided to adopt him. Unfortunately, according to Ukrainian law, John is not eligible to be an adoptive parent. As we know, John is not the first celebrity to run into problems when it comes to adoption.

So what are the reasons that could stand in the way of adoption?

Parental consent

Lev is not an orphan. His mom Marina is a still alive but was deemed incapable of taking care of her and another older sibling because she, too, is HIV positive and has an alcohol problem. Marina declares she is determined to get her life together and get Lev back.

Madonna’s first adoptive child David also wasn’t an orphan. He still has a father who unfortunately, couldn’t, provide for him. The pop star was severely criticized for taking the boy away from his family and homeland.

Marital status

It is not Lev’s mom that stands in the way of John’s adoption plans. It’s his marital status.  Adoptive parents must be married. John is married to his partner David Furnish. Ukrainian law, however, doesn’t recognize same sex marriages.

The Puerto Rican star Ricky Martin reportedly also considered adoption but resorted to surrogacy to avoid the legal hassles due to his single status. Martin is the father of fraternal twin boys Mateo and Valentino.

In fact, many countries do not consider single parents, male or female.

Age

In addition to his unacceptable married status, Ukrainian officials also think John is too old (he is 62) to be an adoptive father. The maximum age limit for adoption in the country is reported to be 45. In some countries it is 60. If there is a maximum age limit, there is also a minimum age limit. In many countries, people under the age of 35 are not eligible to adopt.

Residency

Many countries only allow residents to adopt. Madonna made headlines earlier this year in her efforts to adopt 3-year old Mercy from Malawi. She was denied the right to adopt due to her non-residency status. She eventually won after an appeal.

Health status

Many countries also consider health status of adoptive parents (local or foreign) a major criterion for giving approval. There have been cases of court rulings against adoptive parents who are overweight or obese. A complete medical history may be required from prospective parents.

Other criteria

Aside from the aforementioned criteria, criminal records, financial status, and psychological readiness are also taken into consideration. Rightly so, for the welfare of the adoptive child.

What are the options?

Some celebrities may opt for surrogacy. Other Rumors have it that John and Furnish are considering adopting a child from another country with less restrictions but this still has to be confirmed.

It is advisable for those who plan to adopt to check the adoption laws, whether locally or foreign, before making a decision. This will avoid legal hassles, disappointment, or even heart break.

After all the controversy, custody and adoption battles, Madonna could finally welcome her adoptive daughter Mercy this weekend in London, according to the Independent UK. The three-year old girl from Malawi has hit the headlines earlier this year when she was chosen by the pop diva for adoption, only to be turned down by a Malawi court in April on the grounds that according to the country’s adoption laws, an adoptive parent must have lived in Malawi for at least a year. However, the singer didn’t give up and appealed, which resulted in the original ruling being overturned on June 12. Mercy’s mother, a teenager, died at childbirth. Her father filed an objection to the adoption but has also withdrawn his case.

Mercy’s case opened up again the controversy about celebrities adopting children from impoverished countries. Inter-country adoption has become popular in recent years and some social scientists believe this is actually counterproductive and that celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie and their well-publicized adoptions are clouding the issue.

Some of the objections brought forward by the critics are:

• It gives false hopes to people, sometimes leading parents to deliberately abandon their children in orphanages in the hopes that some rich celebrity would pick her/him out to enjoy a life of comfort.

• Children are uprooted and cannot grow up in familiar cultural and religious surroundings.

However, adoption advocates, especially those who have adopted children from other countries defend their choice: they can’t help every child in this world but at least they could help one or two escape poverty and disease. Surely, this is a worthy cause.

So what do you think? Are you for or against inter-country adoption? Celebrity adoption?

Actress Nia Vardalos received the best gift possible just in time for Mother’s Day. According to reports, she recently spoke about the joy she experienced when her 3-year-old adopted daughter came into her life. In an interview with People.com, Vardalos story is sure to touch a lot of people whether they are adoptive parents or not. Vardalos and her husband Ian Gomez made the addition to their family late last year, but she chose the fitting occasion of Mother’s Day to share her story.

The website quotes the actress as saying, “After years of wanting to be parents, my husband and I were given 14 hours notice … then a little girl walked into our house.” She continued, “One night, the phone rang. The social worker told me we’d been matched with a 3-year-old girl.” The couple had to hurriedly prepare for the arrival of the daughter they had wanted for so long. In fact they didn’t even have much time to let their families in on the news.

After that life changing phone call, they were to get their daughter the very next day. “There wasn’t a baby shower, there wasn’t time to discuss with family and friends, there was no way to really prepare for her arrival.” In the interview she also revealed that the first time she took her daughter to church, the priest offered up a special prayer for her. She was brought to tears when he said, “Today you have given birth to your daughter.”

In the interview Vardalos talked about the difficult path to motherhood. Many people might think that as a celebrity she would have had it easy. Madonna for example seemed to get though her first adoption process relatively quickly. At any rate this is a reminder that even for celebrities, some things just have to run their normal course. Vardalos joins a host of celebrities who have gone the adoption route. These include Hugh Jackman, Sharon Stone, and Mia Farrow.

Vardalos was a little known actress until Rita Wilson, wife of Tom Hanks caught her play and they ended up turning it into the smash hit My Big Fat Greek Wedding. She and Gomez have been married since 1993.

In closing I will leave you with words from Vardalos herself who summed up pretty well what many first time parents probably feel. “All the grief, all the anger, all the angst at the difficult and long journey to parenthood. And that outpouring of tears was quickly followed by a peaceful gratefulness,” she said.

It’s unlikely that anyone will be surprised if Angeline Jolie and Brad Pitt decide to make their family a little bigger. They now have six children; three adopted and three biological. According to recent reports Jolie may be considering adopting a child from India.

She met the cast of the hit film Slumdog Millionaire and was reportedly asked by one of them why she hadn’t adopted a child from India. She was quoted as saying, “Well, I’ll let you into a little secret, we will soon.” Britain’s Sunday Express revealed that Pitt and Jolie visited the Priya Darshini Orphanage in India in 2006. The report stated that they were busy at the time and were unable to go through with the adoption then.

This news comes hot on the heels of reports that singer Madonna is looking to adopt another child. I can only wonder if this may be the beginning of a trend. Given the efforts being made by many organizations to encourage adoption this would be a good thing. However, like all such issues there are pros and cons.

It is surprising though the level of scrutiny that seems to accompany such adoptions. Yes, they are celebs, but surely such a private matter should be treated a little differently. Some celebrities who have gone the adoption route include Tom Cruise, Calista Flockhart, Hugh Jackman Rosie O’Donnell and Lionel Richie. Some have suggested that celebs who adopt use it as a means of remaining in the spotlight.

If these reports turn out to be true, many people must be wondering if Pitt and Jolie will continue to expand their family. I am supportive of the idea of giving these children the chance to be raised with a loving family. I can’t help but wonder, as I am sure many others are, whether they will adopt from somewhere in the US at some point. If anyone needs a reminder, they have Shiloh who is two, and the twins Vivienne and Knox who are now seven months old. Maddox is seven, Pax is four and Zahara is three.

I wish this couple luck with any future family plans. Anyone who has to raise one child knows how tough it can be let alone six. But children are a blessing and once they can be properly cared for and loved, I guess maybe eight isn’t enough for some of us.

International pop legend Madonna, a 50-year old single mother of three, has applied to adopt a second child from the African nation of Malawi. “Her name is Mercy James from Mchinji Home of Hope orphanage. She has no father and mother, they both died,” stated an official at the ministry of Gender and Child Development.

Rumors have been circulating for some time that the singer wanted to bring home a daughter, especially since Madonna herself told the Malawian press last week that she was considering such a move. (Friends of hers suggested that her first adopted son, David, needed a sibling. Madonna said she would do it with “the support of the Malawian people and government.”) But on Friday, officials in both the United States and Malawi confirmed that she had filed paperwork to begin a second adoption. However, Madonn’a personal spokeswoman, Liz Rosenberg, did not comment on the announcement.

Critics attacked Madonna’s throughout her first adoption, completed with ex-husband Guy Ritchie. People said she had circumvented Malawi adoption regulations because of her star power, bringing her son, David Banda, now 3, home to London before the mandatory 18-24 month assessment period that all prospective adoptive parents undergo. Technically, David’s adoption was not finalized until that waiting period was over. And a Malawi government official who did two home studies praised Madonna in glowing terms.

But even without the hubbub over her waiting period, others, including well-known charity Save the Children, harshly criticized Madonna–and all other international adoptive parents, by implication–for removing the child from his homeland.  “The best place for a child is in his or her family in their community,” said a spokesman. “Most children in orphanages have one parent still living, or have an extended family that can care for them in the absence of their parents.” They believe that people should only adopt internationally if there are no options for adopting within your own home country and the child has no living relatives.

In the case of Madonna’s son David, the boy’s father is still living, but had taken him to the orphanage because he could not afford to care for him. Save the Children said that if Madonna really cared about the poor children, she should have given the boy’s dad money to take care of him at home.

Mercy James, the four-year old girl that Madonna seeks to adopt, has no surviving parents. So why would anyone be upset this time around? Because Madonna is not married, and is not a resident of Malawi. Some critics are insisting that she would be breaking Malawian law. However, a Malawi welfare official said this is not true, that they evaluate each case independently. Madonna will appear in court as early as this Monday to present her adoption case.

In 2008, the celebrity said she wanted to take all of her children to Malawi. Madonna has two biological children, 12-year-old daughter, Lourdes, and 8-year-old son, Rocco, in addition to David.

While I have to concede the woman’s amazing vocal talent, I don’t like Madonna at all. I don’t like the circumstances surrounding her adoption of David. But I do not at all agree with Save the Children that it is better for a child to languish in a home-country orphanage when he or she is available for adoption, on the hopes that a nearby relative may visit occasionally. Of course I think it’s terrible when children are taken away from family members. And maybe it would be best for them to stay in their culture. But sometimes that isn’t an option. I have many close friends who have adopted children internationally (China, Guatemala, Haiti, Thailand, and Ethiopia) and domestically, and I think they have done the right thing. There are a lot of children in this world without a home. I think it’s a wonderful thing to give them a home–even if it’s halfway around the world–as long as they have no parents or the parents understand and consent to the adoption.

Finally, Save the Children recommends adopting within your own country. I totally agree. There are hundreds of thousands of American children eligible for adoption. But unfortunately, people don’t do it because they want a baby or toddler. And many people are scared to adopt within the US because of custody issues. My friend who adopted from Thailand went overseas after her first adopted son was given back to his birthmother. (She changed her mind about the adoption 8 months later.) Another couple I am friends with did finalize their domestic adoption, after an 18 month custody battle with their son’s paternal grandparents (the dad had his rights terminated because he was in jail and had 3 other children he was not supporting). These things may be rare, but they happen. And they drive people to seek international adoptions where such interruptions are almost unknown.

What do you think about all of this? In theory, I mean. International adptions, star power, Save the Children. Who’s right?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met in Atlanta on Wednesday, Feb 25. The committee makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among the latest recommendations: the Hepatitis-A vaccine for people who come in contact with international adoptees.

Dr. Cindy Weinbaum, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC, said the recommendations cover adoptions from countries with a high or intermediate infection risk. “That includes most of the world. All that (it) excludes is North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan,” she said. The disease is unfortunately common among children coming from the four top countries of origin for children being adopted by US families. Those are China, Russia, Guatemala and Ethiopia.

Formerly, only parents who were traveling to such countries were recommended for the vaccine. Now, the suggestion includes people such as grandparents and babysitters–anyone who will have close contact with an international adoptee withing 60 days of his or her arrival in the U.S. The average incubation for the disease is 28 days, but it can be longer, and young children often show only very mild symptoms, thereby increasing the risk to unsuspecting adults. And children adopted from other countries usually have not had a vaccination.

Even though these children only cause 3% (at the highest estimate) of Hep-A infections every year, federal officials state that the results can be tragic–especially since they are both foreseeable and preventable. The latest of these cases involved a 51-year old woman who became critically ill after exposure to her internationally adopted grandchildren. Weinbaum cited there were about 20 recent cases.

Hepatitis A is a highly contagious liver infection caused by a virus. It is typically spread through feces (in other words, be careful with the diapers!). Symptoms can include fever, jaundice, nausea and vomiting. It is usually more severe in adults, and can be fatal.

The vaccine is given in two doses. The first one should be administered as soon as an adoption is planned. The second would ideally be given two weeks before the child’s arrival. It is an expensive vaccine, by some standards ($140). But considering that international adoptions often cost between $20,000 and $40,000 (according to Dr. Weinbaum), it’s not a lot of money in the big scheme of things.

This recommendation follows the news last summer of many false-negative tuberculosis tests in international adoptees. For some reason, the children did not show positive results for three months. Similarly, young children with hepatitis-A don’t often show signs of jaundice, an indicator for the infection.

That’s what officials told a hopeful father in the UK. Damien and Charlotte Hall have been married for 11 years, and after trying unsuccessfully to have a baby of their own, decided to try to adopt a child.

But officials in the city of Leeds in northern England told Damien that he would have to lose weight first as his risk of becoming ill or dying was too high.

Damien weighs almost 350 lbs, but says he doesn’t drink or smoke, and says that he walks regularly and is very active.

There is no official upper weight limit for potential adoptive parents in the UK, but very overweight or obese people are likely to be turned down. The Adoption Panel in Leeds says that they are “unlikely to approve applicants with a BMI over 40 because of the long-term health risks.”

The Adoption Panel told the couple that Damien could have another medical in six months time, and they could reconsider their case if he lost weight.

The couple are sad and say that even though they accept that Damien is overweight, and know that he is more at risk from heart disease and other serious health issues, that he doesn’t feel unfit or unhealthy. They say that surely, life with loving parents is better than life in a children’s home, even with the higher chance that he may fall ill? After all, we never know what might happen to even the slimmest and fittest of us.

Currently, thousands of babies and children are awaiting adoption in the UK.

Is it right to discriminate against prospective adoptive parents because of their weight?

In 2004, Frank Gill opened his home as a foster parent to two young brothers. The children are adoptable, and Gill really wants to adopt them. But until today, he was not allowed to. Frank Gill is gay.

In 1977, Florida passed a law prohibiting homosexual individuals from adopting children. But on Tuesday, Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Furthermore, she said it was irrational. This ruling underscores a September ruling that essentially said the same thing, but has not had a practical impact.

Immediately, state attorneys said they would appeal the decision.

Florida, of course, is not the only state with such restrictions. In fact, just this November, Arkansas voters passed a ban on any unmarried person from adopting or even fostering a child. I sincerely believe that most of the supporters of these bans are concerned for the safety and welfare of the kids. They are afraid that unscrupulous parents will adopt children for unsavory reasons. It’s the same logic that did not allow a man to coach my son’s baseball team since he had no relative (a son, grandson, brother, nephew, etc.) on the team. There are, unfortunately, a few sickos who would take advantage of needy kids.

However, I believe that this is the exception, not the rule. And I have said many times that it is unfortunate we have to pass laws because of the exceptions. For example, most of us would never kill anyone, even without a law. But they pass a law for the exceptions among us.

My politics are uber-conservative. But I believe that this kind of ban is wrong. For one thing, the reality is that there are not enough adoptive parents for kids beyond the toddler years or foster homes for wards of the state. I also strongly feel that birthmothers should have the right to choose any adoptive family. It’s the way most adoption agencies within the US operate. If a teen mom wants to select a gay couple, she should be allowed to. Finally, when it comes to children in state custody, I just know there are not enough willing homes. Like I said, there might be a few people out there who want to hurt a child, but I don’t think they are the rule. And if you have ever been close to an adoptive family, you know the state leaves no stone unturned. Every aspect of their lives is scrutinized to make sure they are a good home. I don’t think there will be too many pedophiles missed in this “vetting” process. It’s a numbers game. I’m inclined to believe that more children will be hurt by not having a home than will be hurt by parents with evil motives.

Now, one other aspect is that people who feel homosexuality is morally wrong do not want gay people adopting in order to “recruit” new gays. Maybe this happens sometimes. I wouldn’t like it if it did. However, in the end, I think that leaving children without a home is worse than the possibility of them being raised by someone who is influencing them against their nature.

I would hope that if you feel “someone else’s” home isn’t the right place for a child, you will step out and provide the home you think kids should have. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. I am quite sincere. Thousands of families consider taking in an orphan every year. If only 1 family in 500 followed through, then all 115,000 kids in the US foster system would have a home. But even if you did restrict adoptions to only certain types of families, let’s say Christian families, only 1 household from every 4th church would need to adopt a child (there are over 450,000 churches in the US).

I am not being critical. (My husband and I have never adopted or taken in a foster child. We had to deal with some serious health issues.) I just urge others to not be critical. I say, let gay households take in an orphan. If you disagree, consider whether you can take in that child instead.

I have to admit that I am intrigued by large families?perhaps because we have 5 children. I had a rare opportunity to watch TV this evening and I saw a few minutes of Nanny 911. The family that was featured on this episode that aired tonight has?drum roll please?43 kids.

Jim Silcock and his wife Ann have been married for 11 years. During that time, they?ve adopted 43 boys, all of whom have special needs. I was astounded and humbled as I watched Ann care for all of these children and help her husband, who is paralyzed and in a wheelchair.

Each week, they spend around $800 on groceries alone and Annie does 40 loads of laundry a day. The family of 45 lives in a 9 bedroom, 5 bathroom house that has 2 stories and a residential elevator. New construction will add an additional 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, another living room, and an additional laundry. In order to make sure that all of the children are cared for, the Silcock family has several ?family helpers? who drive the children to activities and help the couple with daily tasks.

According to the information on their family website, the Silcock children have been adopted from all over the world. The couple has chosen to work with disabled boys because they feel that these children are harder to place in ?forever families?. They also are open about the fact that they haven?t ruled out adopting more children.

In addition to caring for their large family, Jim and Ann have started a non-profit organization called First Step Inc. The organization provides grants for disabled people so that they can participate in recreational activities in their communities.

As a mother of with 4 special needs children herself, I can vaguely grasp how difficult life must be for Ann and Jim. I just am finding it hard to come to terms with the reality of what life must be like with 43 children. The next time I get discouraged when my 5 are creating chaos in the house?.I think I?ll take a deep breath and think of Jim and Ann, and realize how good I have it.

Most of us at one point in time have considered giving our children ?back? to wherever they came from. A few parents I know have actually threatened their irritating teenagers or toddlers with such a punishment.

In Nebraska, parents of 35 children have done just that.

The idea is to reduce infanticide. Every state in the US has a type of safe haven law under which parents can leave their newborns at a hospital or police station, no questions asked. Though age limits vary, fifteen states only allow ?safe haven? until the baby is 3 days old. But Nebraska?s law, passed this July, has no age limit. And some parents have seen the light.

Last night, a 5-year-old boy was taken to a medical center. He is number 35 (compare that to New Jersey, which has only had 37 surrenders since 2000), and he is not the oldest child to be abandoned. The same day, a 17-year old girl and her 14-year old brother were also given to the state. The girl left before authorities could arrive. But that?s not the half of it (literally). There have been other siblings groups, including other teens. One day, an overwhelmed widowed father brought in NINE children, between the ages of 20 months and 17 years. Grandparents have brought in kids. So have people from out of state.

Unless the children have been abused physically, their parents cannot be prosecuted under this Nebraska law. So now, rather than scared teen moms dropping off babies in the middle of the night, there are parents who are just sick of their kids. No questions asked.

Nebraska?s director of Health & Human Services, Todd Landry, says, “We need to get back to the intent of the law?the protection of newborns in immediate danger of being harmed.” Ya? think?

These kids have no physical scars?yet. But most states? foster care systems are sadly overburdened and abuses occur. And I?ll bet all these kids who are old enough to know what?s up will develop some serious emotional issues.

I am actually in favor of the safe haven laws that allow newborns to be placed in state custody. I have always been an advocate of early adoption, and feel that most foster care cases could be eliminated if parents who are incapable for whatever reason would willingly surrender their children to loving adoptive homes at birth.

(But even with all of these well-intended laws, and legal access to abortion, babies are still being thrown away, right here in the US. In Maryland, this autumn, a one day-old baby was left to die in a field.)

I know there are a lot of different issues here. Back to the main one. Nebraska legislators are apparently going to revisit the law. I hope they restrict the safe haven for abandonment to newborns. What do you think?

November is National Adoption Month. If you are like most other Americans, adoption has touched you rlife in some way. And a survey conducted by the Dave Thomas Foundation reported that 39% of Americans have considered adopting themselves. Yet only 2% of families in the US actually take the leap. Why? Of course, some families decide it’s just not right for them. But others back off for reasons that, sadly, are myths.

The same study said that more than 8 out of 10 people were concerned about birthparents reclaiming their children after the adoption. However, dissolved adoptions happen in as little as 1% of cases-and that includes those dissolved by the adoptive parents. While more adoptions are interrupted before finalization, it is very rare for children to be removed from new homes. It can and does happen, but when a good agency locates and gets permission from both biological parents, this scenario is almost unheard of.

Another factor is cost. True, it can cost as much as $40,000 to adopt internationally. But many people don’t realize that you can adopt a child from foster care for little or even NO cost. Private adoptions might involve only attorney’s paperwork fees. Assistance available from individual states, and a federal tax credit also helps cover adoption costs.

Some people are scared that their child may have been kidnapped or coerced from its mother. If you work with a reputable agency, this won’t happen. And if you adopt from within the United States, you can usually meet the birthmother. In addition, the State Department has banned adoptions from nations where this is suspected.

Some people are afraid they’or others’won’t be able to accept the child as their own. Thankfully, the Dave Thomas survey also discovered that 2/3 of Americans view adoption very positively. Significant percentages of people view adoptive children as no different than biological children.

If your family has thought about adopting, but gave up the idea, take another look. It’s easy to find trustworthy information online. You just may find that all your roadblocks have been removed.

India is fast becoming the surrogacy capital of the world, but laws governing the process are still in their infancy.

A casualty of the Indian legal system and a divorce, is a baby born to a surrogate mother in India who is potentially motherless and fatherless after the couple who paid for her split up.

A Japanese couple recruited an Indian woman as a surrogate mother. The baby girl, born in late July, was conceived with a donor egg, and sperm from the husband, Ikufumi Yamada. The couple split up and divorced while the surrogate mom was pregnant. Mrs Yamada doesn’t want to adopt the baby, and the surrogate mom doesn’t want the baby. The baby’s father wants to bring his daughter home to Japan but Indian law prohibits single men from adoption.

Japanese authorities have hinted that they may be able to approve a visa for the baby girl to come to Japan, and for her to be legally adopted in that country. But currently she’s living in a hospital in the Indian city of Jaipur, where her grandmother, Yamada’s mom, is caring for her.

It’s tragic that there’s such a simple solution that a legal system is preventing. Hopefully sensible heads will prevail, both countries can come to an agreement and the baby can be adopted by her biological father in Japan.

Surrogate Baby Legal Drama

A study published online in the July edition of the journal Pediatrics revealed that many internationally adopted children showed positive skin tests for tuberculosis (TB) three months after receiving negative results.

The U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics reports that 20,705 children were adopted from overseas in 2006, and most of them come from regions where TB is prevalent. Therefore, initial exams for such internationally adopted children regularly include TB skin tests. Around 21% of those children test positive for infection. However, the researchers later retested children with initial negative results and learned that another 20% had latent TB infections (not the active disease).

TB is a bacterial infection that typically attacks the lungs (but other organs are susceptible as well). Left untreated, it can be fatal. Tuberculosis in the lungs or throat is communicable through airborne particles, and infection spreads easily, but not all infected people become ill. This “latent” infection is not communicable, but the carrier can become ill at a later time. Luckily, it is easily treated when detected. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention has a pamphlet on the disease, it?s symptoms and other information on its website.

Because of the high incidence of false-negative results in the research study, the authors suggest an initial TB skin test when foreign adoptees are brought home, and a repeat test in three months for those with a negative result.

In the last 10 years, inter-country adoption has become popular, much more so because of well-publicized adoptions by the likes of Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Madonna was especially involved in a controversy way back in 2006 when she adopted little David from Malawi because the said child wasn?t an orphan at all. David was placed by his father (his mother had passed away) in the hope that the child gets a better life.
There is currently a heated debate going on on the ethics of inter-country adoption and how adoptions by celebrities are affecting this issue. The so-called ?Madonna-effect? has affected inter-country adoption as follows:

? A recent report by psychologists at the University of Liverpool claims that more and more families from the West are opting more and more for inter-country adoption rather than adopting children from their home country, possibly following the example that celebrities such as Madonna has set.

? The same report claims that ?Madonna-style? inter-country adoptions are increasing the number of children in orphanages in developing countries. It seems that more and more parents are giving up their children to institutions with the hopes that some rich Western family will adopt their child and provide for her/him a better life. It is estimated that about 96% of children across Europe (most in less developed Eastern Europe) are not orphans at all but have at least one living parent.

The Liverpool researchers recommend more stringent guidelines for monitoring inter-country adoption policy and practice.

Philip Ball, a columnist at Nature, and one who has opted for inter-country adoption, thinks that the report by the Liverpool researchers are full of ?gross simplifications and misleading conclusions? which actually do not help clear up the issue. It is true that inter-country adoption can lead to problems like coercion and child trafficking (remember the French aid workers who tried to smuggle ?orphans? out of Africa?)

However, these issues should not invalidate the real purpose of inter-country adoption. This controversy is rather sad because either way, it?s the children who will suffer. A December 2007 paper in Science reported that children who are moved from orphanages to foster homes showed better cognitive development than those who stayed in orphanages. The question is whether the children?s plight in orphanages is any worse than if they had stayed at home. But clearly there is a need for getting children out of orphanages as early as possible. In the end, it?s the children that matters.

Related posts on adoption:

Orphanages Impact IQ Development?

Adopting? Tax Credit Increases for 2008 and Beyond

Adoption: Laughter and Tears

Good news! If you’re an adopting parent (as my wife and I will be, hopefully in 2009…), you know the high cost associated with the adoption process. Well, if you adopted this past year, you might actually enjoy your taxes this time around!For parents who completed the adoption process in 2007, you may be eligible for a federal tax return of up to $11,390 for qualified adoption expenses. In fact, if you started the adoption process in 2007, but won’t complete the process until this year, you may be able to claim some expenses incurred in ‘07. The tax credit runs through 2010, but there is apparently wide support to make the tax credit permanent in the future.

According to the IRS website, qualifying expenses include “reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees, traveling expenses (including amounts spent for meals and lodging while away from home), and other expenses directly related to and for which the principal purpose is the legal adoption of an eligible child.”

You should file form 8839 if you would like to claim the adoption credit.

For all the fun associated with the IRS descriptions and rules, you should check out the official IRS website. My advice is to have a glass of wine as you read, it helps keep the stress level down…

A growing phenomena, largely related to the dearth of adequate and affordable health care in the United States, is what has often been called “medical tourism”. People fly to India, Mexico, Thailand, etc. for all sorts of medical (and often cosmetic) issues including bypass surgeries, knee and hip replacements, dental work, eye surgery, you name it.You can typically cut your cost by about 90% for some procedures and hey, you can work in a trip to the beach while you’re there. There are even businesses that help place you, akin to travel agents – except these are travel/hospital agents. There’s even a website for “medical tourism in Iran”. Seems like a poor idea, but maybe that’s just me.

Then I stumbled across this little nugget which details how medical tourism has grown to include outsourcing surrogate pregnancies. I’m not sure this is what they envisioned when they passed NAFTA.

To summarize, this article details a town in India where dozens of women carry the children of infertile couples mostly from the U.S. and Britain. It appears the going rate is $4500, which is apparently what most residents could hope to make in 15 years. The going rate for surrogacy in the U.S. seems to range anywhere from about $20,000 on up to $80,000.

The women they interview do it for the money first, but also see it as a great service to couples who need their help. However, the article also articulates a more sinister side to the notion of “wombs for rent” – that $4500 is such a drop in the bucket for the uber rich, we may see a day when those who are inconvenienced by pregnancy simply pay for someone to carry their child as if they are paying someone to walk their bratty little Bichon Frise.

Add it to the growing pile of ethical dilemmas to debate…

After two adopted children with first husband Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman has disclosed her first pregnancy to close friends. News of the pregnancy broke on London?s Daily Mail but was reportedly denied by Kidman?s publicist and Fox News? Roger Friedman, who writes with certitude and authority owing to his own close sources. The news, though, has made the rounds of news feeds, such as the Telegraph, the UPI, and OK! Magazine.
It is said that Nicole and her husband, rehabbed country singer Keith Urban, announced the big news to friends and family at Christmas.

Although some of the news headlines ring with certainty, an official press statement would put all questions to rest. In the meantime, we can enjoy the prospect of seeing Kidman bear her own flesh and blood.

Light bulbs, check.

Cordless drill, check.

Oh, and I might as well meet my biological mother whom I haven’t seen in 22 years.

Feel free to read the whole story, it’s a doozy. But here’s the summary – Steve Flaig, 22, was given up for adoption at birth. At 18, he started the investigation into who his biological mother was with the intention of attempting to meet her. Steve is a delivery driver at Lowe’s. After much searching, he finally discovers who his biological mother is. She’s the head cashier at Lowe’s. He’s been walking past her every day.

What are the odds of THAT? I guess I need to resurrect my faith in the state lottery and buy me a ticket.

Stories like this unearth an uneasiness that has bothered me ever since my wife and I decided to start the process of adopting a child from China. What if she wants to find her birth parents? It’s a likely scenario, frankly – and if I know myself as well as I do, I’m going to want to give this little girl every opportunity in the world at any cost. But what do I do when she asks for something as important as this – for some people, it aids in developing identity – and I know how unlikely it is that I can give it to her?

When we were accepted by our agency and put into the proverbial “queue” for a match via China, I started digging around online for information on this very subject. I stumbled across this staggeringly extensive blog post on the subject. Among all the amazing details and depth of information therein, the thing that stood out the most to me was that waiting 10-15 years to attempt to locate birth parents in China makes it virtually impossible to ever find them. The point is – adoptive parents basically need to anticipate the question and attempt to determine birth parents soon after they adopt and have the information in case the question comes up.

This really blew me away. So now I wrestle with the notion that if my little girl ever wants to know who her birth parents are – I need to do the research when she’s an infant on the remote chance I can find them. And if I do find them, I sit on this information until she asks? Do I give it to her if she doesn’t?

I can’t tell you how strange it is to love someone so unconditionally when I know she isn’t even yet conceived and she’s going to come from a country I’ve only seen on television. But I know I’m going to want to give her everything she wants – so I’m going to try and have my sluething hat on early to find her birth parents…just in case.

And hey, if I fail – I’ll just tell her to get a job at Lowe’s. They have everything.