Comments on: Does David Banda’s father want his son back?

By: hello

hello — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:45:08 +0000

He’s such a cute little boy.

I feel like I’ve seen Guy with him more too, in pictures at least.

I think the worst part about this is that all of these kids are going to have to deal with trans-Atlantic visitation. I got the impression that Lourdes doesn’t see her dad very much until she piped up about it. I don’t know if that’s right, but I imagine it would be a logistical nightmare.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: KateNonymous

KateNonymous — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:33:25 +0000

If they had adopted domestically, isn’t it most likely that the child would have at least one living biological parent? Why is it different in an overseas adoption?

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Moogles

Moogles — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:54:41 +0000

I’m very much with those who are uncomfortable with Madonna and Angelina adopting children with living parents. I worked at an orphanage in Cambodia (it’s actually illegal to adopt a child from Cambodia due to problems in child trafficking, but you can buy your way out of any legal circumstance in that country, as in Angelina’s case), and people don’t realize that parents often bring their children to orphanages when they can’t support them, but still come to visit their children and take their children back once they get back on their feet. It’s quite common, actually, and it seems like exactly the circumstance David Banda was in– although it’s a bid more wonky in Zahara’s case. Orphanages in Cambodia and many other third world countries are not run in the expectation of placing these children in other homes– they’re there simply to feed the children, put a roof over their heads, and educate them. I understand that a foreigner could easily misunderstand the situation and adopt a child thinking their parents gave them up when in actuality the parent meant the situation to be temporary. And because of the corruption in many of these orphanages, foreigners may not get told the child’s parents take an active part in the child’s life. Also, sometimes parents just make the sacrifice when they see someone with all the money in the world taking an interest in their child. More often, however, they’re simply powerless to keep their child no matter how much they want him or her. But I think in Madonna’s, she totally had the resources to investigate the situation and did not, and it really bothers me because it basically means she doesn’t think of the child’s father as human. Having seen the way even middle-class foreigners treat Cambodians like ready-made servants when they’re on vacation, it quite frankly disgusts me.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: aleach

aleach — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:34:40 +0000

well the way i see it, she basically “bought” that kid. it may sound bad, but she did! he has living parents, of course they are poor, but parents nonetheless.
there are a million ways to bring attention to africa other than adopting a child.
and from whats being posted about madonnas home environment, i feel bad for all 3 of her kids! no sugar? haha, i wouldnt have made it!
but these people adopt kids, and then parade them around for photographers and drag them all over the world, im sure no kids enjoy that. and its got to be a HARD transition from one life to another. no doubt madonna can provide better for him than his biological father, but “things” arent what lifes always about…

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Mairead

Mairead — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:41:41 +0000

I’m guessing that they chose these children because there was some sort of immediate connection with them, and possibly fell in love with them and wanted to parent them on the spot. Better for them to adopt these children, who had been placed for adoption, than say ‘No I want a proper orphan – meh, you’ll do’

That whole African trip was a bit of a dud – turning up in combats and doing a bit of random dancing which was nothing like what the tribes-people were showing her, etc. etc. But it does seem as if this is a very loved and wanted little boy.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Kaiser

Kaiser — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:19:09 +0000

The situations between Angie’s adoptions and Madonna’s adoption were completely different. For example, Angie was told that Zahara was an orphan, and the orphanage had the documentation to “prove” it, including a signed legal document from Z’s grandmother. When adopting Z, Angie followed all rules and protocol. It was more than two years after Z’s adoption that Z’s birth mother came forward, and she never claimed to want Z back. Z’s birth grandmother also came out and said that she had lied to the orphanage and falsified the records of her daughter’s death.

Now, Madonna knew at the time that David had a living father. True, David was living in an orphanage, so obviously there was a legit concern about the welfare of the boy, and whether David’s father could ever handle the responsibilities. But what I always found distasteful about David’s adoption was Madonna’s manipulation of the Malawai legal system and her disregard for the existing adoption rules and protocol. Of all the celebrity adoptions that get critisized, it’s David’s that seemed like a “baby hijacking”.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:00:46 +0000

When Zahara was adopted, they did not know her mother was still alive, so, I don’t get what the problem is here. Second, if a child is in an orphanage, does that not mean they are they to be abopted? These children were not snatched from their homes the way some of you write.

If parents cannot take care of their children but want time, then, they should not be placed in an institution whose purpose is to find adoptive homes or they should state that they don’t want them to be adopted.

As with Zahara’s “mother”, it was the tabloid press that brought all that up, not her (also, we have not heard from her since, funny if you ask me, that once the press left, the “problem” went away) and with Mr. Banda, it just seems sad and the problems may stem from the fact that Malawi had odd laws that may or may not have been circumvented. But again, it is the press that keeps going back as I don’t think he has a publicist. But it may prove that children should not be brought into “unstable” adoptive homes, even if they are weathly. Not saying that Mr. Ritchie does not love David, I am not sure he was totally on board in the beginning.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: geronimo

geronimo — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:53:36 +0000

@Jenn – Zahara was anything but ‘cute’. She was seriously ill and malnourished when AJ adopted her. That her mother (confirmed dead to the authorities by Z’s grandmother) turned out later not to be dead can’t be laid at AJ’s door. And both Madonna and Jolie have put money, time and effort into trying to improve the lives of other similar children in equally grim circumstances.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: RaeJillian

RaeJillian — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:40:22 +0000

many times i have said that one day zarah might turn around and say, “we have so much, we help so many people. why couldn’t you help my mother instead of taking me away?” david may well say the same thing.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: devilgirl

devilgirl — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:40:12 +0000

While I believe Jolie adopts children out of love, I have always thought that Madonna’s adoption was just another one of her many well orchestrated publicity whoring activities.

Report this comment as spam or abuse