Madonna's Adoption Bid Is Epic Fail (Gee, I Wonder Why?)
As most of you probably know by now, pop supertart Madonna wanted to adopt a little girl from Malawi to complete her set of little African adoptees. However, a judge with sense and intelligence (unlike the first one involved in David Banda's case) chose to deny Madonna's request.
I'm not even going to try and summarize this case...instead, I found an article at the Daily Mail which, I believe, sums up the whole case and everything that is so wrong about it in a way that I only wish I could. I'll hit the highlights for you, but I encourage you to go read it for yourself.
Esme Chombo's dramatic ruling was announced on the steps of Lilongwe's High Court in a rainstorm shortly before 11am local time yesterday.The law, she said in her ruling, stated that an adoption could not be permitted to anyone who was not resident in Malawi, noting that Madonna had jetted in just days prior to Monday's hearing.
'The issue of residence, I find, is the key upon which the question of adoption rests, and it is the very bedrock of protection that our children need; it must, therefore, not be tampered with.
'As wisely put by G. K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."'
According to one source, Madonna screamed 'Whaaaat!' when he told her the judge's decision.
Key to yesterday's judgment, said Judge Chombo, was the meaning of the word 'residence'.'Residence denotes some degree of permanence. It does not necessarily mean the applicant has a settled headquarters in this country,' said Judge Chombo, quoting previous legal precedents.
'It seems dangerous to try to define what is meant by residence. In the present case, I can only answer that question in the case of [Madonna] by holding that she is not resident in this country; she is merely a sojourner here during a period of leave.
'Ms Madonna may not be the only international person interested in adopting the so-called poor children of Malawi.
By removing the very safeguard that is supposed to protect our children, the courts by their pronouncements could actually facilitate trafficking of children by some unscrupulous individuals who would take advantage of the weakness of the law of the land.
Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati