Madonna, Malawi and adoption madness

Her adoption controversy highlights the problems when politics trumps the welfare of the child.

By Beth Nonte Russell April 6, 2009

The controversy surrounding the attempt by Madonna to adopt a second child from an orphanage in Malawi brings to light the confusing situation in international adoption. On Friday, a judge in that nation rejected the singer's adoption request on the grounds that waiving an 18-month residency requirement would set a dangerous precedent. Madonna was granted such an exemption when she adopted a Malawian boy in 2006.

This is just another example of how the intricacies of each country's legal system, cultural mores and poverty level intersect with the guidelines of The Hague treaty on inter country adoptions.

The result has been a decline in the number of orphans from developing countries being adopted by Americans. While adoptions become harder, the number of orphans grows, especially in Africa because of the tragedy of the AIDS crisis. Malawi has an estimated 1 million orphans, and untold numbers of orphans languish in other African countries as well as in Romania, Russia, China and Latin America.

Read More...........

--------------------------

While I don't agree with every aspect of her synopsis, the opinion of Beth Nonte Russell certainly gives us something to think about.

I am personally torn. I have had the benefit of visiting some of these children in their environment. I draw most of my conclusions from our experience in developing House of Faith Orphanage in Silembe, Zambia. This is a special, and beautiful place. Though the opportunities are limited, there is something you miss when you leave this place. What if you were born and raised there? What if your extended family lived in the area? What would it then be like for a young child to be up-rooted and joined to a new family in a far away place?

We are not attempting to develop an institutional environment in Silembe. Based on some of the research the author provides in her opinion, I think we may need to reduce the number of children in each home to provide a more cohesive family environment for the child; however, this transition will dramatically increase our capital costs per child. There are always trade-offs.

In addition, we purposely maintain contacts with extended family for each child in the community when possible. When this child is adopted into families located in foreign countries, this family connection is much more distant, infrequent, and complicated. I personally believe that international adoption is part of the solution for these children, besides all of the arguments against it.

Please consider this example as you consider your opinion.

In Zambia, there are approximately 1.2 million Orphans. If you removed this portion of the population, you are left with 10,800,000 people. Per additional research I was able to pull, the average household size in poor countries is between 5 and 6 people versus 2.6 in the US.

For our purposes, we'll use 5 people per household in Zambia to account for many of the Orphan children that are already living in these households, which would finally give us 2.16 million households. This analysis would indicate that over 1/2 of all households would have to adopt one Orphan to adsorb this vulnerable group into family units. Not only will this not happen, but many of these children will receive less than ideal care due to economic pressures. In addition, the family has to be willing and capable of caring for additional children.

For care of Orphans, there has to be an approach that involves many solutions. Originally we founded Global Orphan Relief with the intent of helping families adopt children, but upon realizing the magnitude of this group of children we realized that we would also have to reach out and provide care and that is where we began this work.

Whatever your opinion, please pray for these children, and support them in some way.

Peace,
Scott A. Nordstrom
Founder, President
Global Orphan Relief