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 Her father filed an objection to the adoption but has also withdrawn his case.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

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?