If people here think that Britons are obsessed with celebrities, maybe they should compare themselves with Malawians.
Was it really any surprise that Madonna would win her adoption appeal? I mean, she managed to adopt her first Malawian baby without fulfilling the residency status, so why did the Malawian court go through the pretence of rejecting her adoption bid based on the residency status this time?
Neither of the two Malawian children are really “orphans”. She brings her son, David, back to Malawi to visit his father occasionally. And, “Mercy’s” supposed father wants to keep her. (I say supposed because they haven’t done DNA testing yet.)
Now, some might argue that Mercy’s father is unfit because he abandoned her mother when she was pregnant. But he had admitted that he was immature at the time, and he wants to be a father now. Should that be denied him? He may not have a lot of money, but when a person has decided that they want to be a parent, they will work hard to support the child. If he fails, perhaps, consider helping him out. He might even decide at that time that the best thing for the child is adoption by someone else. But the court doesn’t seem to be considering his side.
It’s hard to turn down the kind of money Madonna’s offering. After all, she also supports many of the orphans in Malawi. It’s like forced adoption. As I’ve said before, why didn’t Madonna choose a child that does not have any family involved – a real orphan? Mercy even has extended family; I’m surprised she was in the orphanage. Then, again, they probably couldn’t afford to keep her. This extended family supports Madonna’s bid (I wonder how much they’re getting?).
So, celebrity status + money = “I get what I want” (No wonder Gordon Brown is grasping at celebrities.) At least, that’s the case in Malawi. Here, in Britain, celebrities cannot push their way into an orphanage and demand that they be allowed to take any child they please. Oh, wait a minute, celebrities don’t want British orphans.