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 Her father filed an objection to the adoption but has also withdrawn his case.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.

Last week, the world learned that pop star Madonna was seeking to adopt a second child from the African nation of Malawi. On Thursday, Malawi’s Minister of Child Welfare supported Madonna, saying the adoption left one less mouth for the government to feed. On Friday, shortly after an unofficial report claimed the judge had privately told her she would be approved, her case was rejected by a Malawi judge, effectively terminating her appeal to adopt 3-year-old Chifundo “Mercy” James.

The 50-year-old singer did not appear in person in court. Her New York spokeswoman did not comment. But her lawyer filed notice that he would appeal the decision.

Reportedly, the refusal is based solely on a law that requires adoptive parents to have lived in the country for a year and a half. The judge said she would not bend the rules just because Madonna was rich and famous. And since she had “jetted into the country during the weekend just days prior to the hearing,” she could hardly be considered a resident. This addendum has led some to believe that Madonna’s celebrity status is actually the reason why she was rejected.

Others suppose it is because of her single parent status. The residency requirement was waived for her first adoption, when Madonna was married to Guy Ritchie. Today, Ritchie spoke kindly of Madonna, saying she was a great mum and that he was saddened by the court’s decision. “She is motivated only by being a caring parent who seeks to share some of the advantages and opportunities that her life has given her.”

For the second time, Madonna also drew sharp attacks from her own critics, as well as child welfare groups that generally look down on international adoptions. Their mantra is “the child is better off with relatives.” That is the typical course for African orphans. But since 14% of adults in Malawi have AIDS, there aren’t enough relatives to go around. Even healthy adults are often incapable of providing financially for children, many of whom end up on the streets.

When Madonna adopted now 3-year old David Banda, the criticism was a little more understandable. His father is alive but unable to care for him. He had never once visited the orphanage where David lived. At the time, the father supported the adoption, according to Madonna’s 2006 interview with the BBC.

Mercy James is different. Her mother, just 14 when she gave birth, died shortly after. Her father is not mentioned. Her grandmother is unable to care for her. The child’s maternal uncle consented to the adoption. Madonna promised to rescue the child from a life of “hardship and emotional trauma” that is inevitable for an orphan. Still, some people say that Mercy should stay in the country because of the possibility that distant relatives may appear and be able to take her in.

After the court decision was handed down, Madonna and her three children (3-year-old David, 8-year-old son Rocco, and 12-year-old daughter Lourdes) toured the location of a school she is building. Later, she threw a party at her hotel with traditional dancers, as well as government officials and the staff of Raising Malawi, Madonna’s charity. Earlier in the week, they visited David’s orphanage and David’s biological father.

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?

When British Indie movie film director wed Madonna, whoever thought it would last? Well, they were married in 2000 for almost eight seemingly peaceful years, including the birth of their son Rocco in August 2000 and adoption of baby David from Malawi in 2006.

Rumors of Madonna’s infidelity with baseball player Alex Rodriguez have been swirling since July, including the repeated story that she wants to have another baby with A-Rod. Bear in mind that Madonna is 50, and while most celebrities tend to get exactly what they want either by the influence of their fame, or cash, time is not on her side for becoming a mom again.

And Guy Ritchie has been less than complimentary about his estranged wife: sleeping with Madonna was like “cuddling up with bag of gristle” and he’s been complaining about the alcohol, dairy, and sugar-free macrobiotic diet she insisted the whole family followed.

In common with other celebrity splits, Madonna and Guy seem to be on course for a custody battle for their children. Madonna is currently on tour in America, while her three children, including daughter Lourdes from a previous relationship, were looked after by nannies in Los Angeles.

Guy Ritchie hadn’t seen his sons Rocco and David for several weeks, and
father and sons were finally reunited at London’s Heathrow Airport today.

Allegedly, Madonna wants the children to live in New York with her, and Guy wants to them to attend school in the UK. Madonna is reputed to have offered Guy $12 million to drop his legal battle to share custody of the children. He’s supposed to have refused and hired a top lawyer to fight for his kids. Madonna is estimated to be worth almost half-a-billion dollars. So it’s like a normal person offering their ex $50 for custody of the children. Can you be any more offensive to the father of your kids? Custody battles are hard enough without one party wanting the children to live in a whole different country to the other. Good luck to them resolving this one with as little damage to the children as possible.

So normal people who share custody of their kids with their ex-partner often drop them off with a little list of things to do (For example…. Me: he has diaper rash, can you put this cream on it? Or, Ex: Can you take his library books back? I think we are relatively normal for a divorcing couple…) Madonna insists that the children wear only the clothes she sent with them from LA, eat only the macrobiotic food she approved, drink only Kaballah water, and only play with “spiritually” sound toys. And then the oddest thing? Guy has to read the boys bedtime stories, and the reading matter of choice? Madonna’s own childrens’ books, The English Roses, a series of tales about a group of girls’ friendships, trials and tribulations at school. I don’t suppose Rocco, being 8, is especially interested in girls anyway. And making Guy read her own books? Is she for real? Perhaps I just answered my own question….

Nannies have been used for years to help moms and families with any number of child rearing issues. But for every success story, there is probably a horror story lurking somewhere. This is especially true of celebrities, who are at greater risk simply because of their wealth and fame. Here are a few celebrity nanny scandals that have hit the headlines over the last few years.

Jude Law – The British heartthrob was exposed by the tabloids for having a fling with his children?s nanny. Jude owned up to his infidelity and made a public apology to his then fianc?, Sienna Miller, hi co-star in Alfie. However the scandal still brought an end to their relationship.

Britney Spears – Spears? nanny was lifting Sean Preston from his high chair when he fell and hit his head. Six days later they ended up carrying him to the emergency room. Thankfully, the child was fine, but child welfare officials visited her home, later deciding that everything was fine.

David and Victoria Beckham – Celebs often ask their nannies to sign confidentiality agreements. It?s not clear if these agreements cover infidelity, but David Beckham may wish he had thought of it. Former nanny, Abbie Gibson accused him of being a serial cheater, and claimed that his marriage to Victoria was heading for divorce. The couple filed suit, but the story had already made the front page.

Robert De Niro – Nanny Lucyna Turyk-Wawrynowicz stole a pair of diamond earrings belonging to De Niro?s wife, Grace Hightower. She spent some time at Rikers Island, and ended up being deported to Poland.

Madonna – Her former nanny decided to go the tell-all book route. Melissa Dumas? proposed book reportedly included information about Madonna?s marriage to Guy Ritchie, her religion, and the adoption of a baby from Malawi. According to reports, as soon as the lawyers became interested, the publishers lost theirs.

These stories probably represent the tip of the iceberg. It?s tough when your profession opens you up to unscrupulous people looking to make a quick buck. The bottom line is, whichever side is at fault, they should keep in mind that it?s the children who will most likely be hurt.

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