Adoption has certainly been in the media this week. As my fellow blogger Michelle has noted in the popular culture blog, Madonna’s petition to adopt a second child from Malawi was denied by a judge in Malawian court. Madonna, who has said she plans to appeal, left the country Sunday without three-year-old Chifundo “Mercy” James, the child she had planned to make her daughter.
The judge said she fears that waiving the country’s residency requirements for adoptive parents would open the door to traffickers. Other possible reasons for the different outcome in this case from Madonna’s previous adoption are being debated. (Madonna’s adoption of her son from Malawi was finally completed last year. She had received permission from a Malawian judge to take that child out of Malawi before the adoption was finalized.)
Speculation among many newspapers and blogs has ranged from the conservative judge not liking Madonna’s wardrobe, to her single status after divorcing Guy Ritchie last year, to being fed up with the perception that Madonna’s money and donations earn her special privileges.
In Malawi itself, the child welfare minister and the head of a human rights group have found themselves on opposite sides of this issue. Internet comments not only have debated Madonna’s likableness, character, time with her children, and motivations, but have also raised two more substantive issues:
1. Why go abroad when there are children needing help in one’s own country? And
2. What are the ethics of adopting a child with living birthparents or relatives?
Since these questions affect many international adoptions, I’ll be writing my thoughts on these issues soon.
This week also marked the first anniversary of the U.S.’s full adoption of the Hague Convention on International Adoption, a landmark treaty which mandates adoption education for prospective parents, safeguards to prevent child trafficking and exploitation, and government accreditation or oversight of adoption agencies. In future blogs I will attempt to address the effect of the Hague Treaty on adoptions between the United States and sending countries.
The other adoption story in the popular media was fictional—and as far as last week is concerned, it was “the story that wasn’t”. The next-to-last episode of the 15-year-long NBC series ER had a doctor and her husband hoping to adopt a baby abandoned at the hospital. To complicate matters, the birthmother reappeared saying she wanted to do the right thing and raise her baby, no matter the impact on her own life. At the end, the birthmother and the would-be adoptive mom agreed to consider an open adoption. I was eagerly anticipating that the next episode, the series finale, would expose more people to the fact that most newborn adoptions in this country are open adoptions.
Alas, that was not to be. There was no mention of adoption in last Thursday’s show whatsoever. Dr. Banfield, her husband Russell, the birthmother Nancy, and baby Barack are to be left in the limbo of our imaginations forever.
I suppose that’s not terribly surprising given that this fifteenth and final season of ER was the Banfield character’s first. She had barely a few lines in the finale.
Perhaps it’s better this way. The ER scriptwriters seem to accept ambiguity as part of life. (Indeed whether one of the main characters, Dr. Carter, would reconcile with his wife was left unresolved also.) It may be just as well that the writers didn’t try to fit the complexity of adoption decisions and open adoption plans into a few snippets of one episode.