Father 'misled' on Madonna adoption deal

Jeevan Vasagar
Monday October 23, 2006
The Guardian

Madonna's decision to adopt a baby boy from Malawi ran into fresh controversy yesterday when the child's father said he had never wanted to give the boy up for adoption.

In an interview with Reuters, Yohane Banda said: "Had they told us that Madonna wanted to adopt my son and make him her own son, we would not have agreed to that. It would have been better for him to continue staying at the orphanage because I see no reason why my child should be given away for ever when I can feed him."

Mr Banda's statement contrasts with his criticism last week of human rights groups that went to court to stop the adoption.

He told Reuters he signed papers he could not understand, but government officials assured him the agreement with Madonna was similar to the one he had with the orphanage to nurture and educate the boy but not take him away for good.

more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1928773,00.html







Boy's Dad Confused Over Madonna Adoption

(snip)

"Our understanding was that they would educate and take care of our son just as they were doing at the orphanage," Yohane Banda, 32, told AP in a telephone interview on Sunday. "I am just realizing now the meaning of adoption."

more
http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1549348,00.html

I think this boy should be given back.

open dad

In one article, he said the way he understood it, she would be 'taking care of him' until he was grown. Then SEND the boy back to him.

WTF? After the boy is grown.. what kind of connection is he going to have with them? How is he going to be able to relate to them, after growing up in a TOTALY different envirment? When some one is 'grown', you can't make them do anything. He might not want to go back. That is a screwed up thought all together.

I"m sorry. I can't understand a parent that wants their child to grow up in an orphanage and thinks that is fine. That just blows my mind. I can understand the breast feeding part. But this mand sounds like he did understand enough that he was going to be allowing someone else to raise the boy totally.

When the child grows up he will be an adult and make his own decisions. The father won't be able to force Madonna to send him back or force the child to go back.

...and the orphanage had a better opportunity to feed the kid the type of foods normally the child would receive from breast milk

Now, all of a sudden, after voluntarily relinquishing custody and leaving the kid in the orphanage with the hope for "a better life," he's had a change of heart? How conveeeeeeeeeeenient.

Not good enough for your son to have the chance of a lifetime,huh, Dad? Got to make you some bucks, too.

Okay, Madonna, there are other children waiting for your open arms. Go to them. Fate is a harsh master.

there is totally a sketchy exploitative side to the whole white-saviors-rescuing-babies-out-of-Africa phenomenon, on the part of the rich white adoptive parents. If Madonna is such a great humanitarian, why didn't she either find a parentless child, or better yet, given money to the alive father of this one so that he could take him home from the orphanage.

People started looking elsewhere for 'babys in need of loving arms', when people started to realize how screwed up our adoption system is.

The tide started swaying towards overseas adoptions when adopted parents were faced with such legalitys as one of the birth parents deciding on wanting their child back. Fathers who supposely didn't know they were a father stepping forward and mothers changing their mind.. Conviently after the 'baby stages' were done.

Yes, now the mega stars are doing it. They are no different then other people. And babys, it doesn't matter where they are born, what color their skin is,they deserive to have a home. And in America, it isn't uncommen to seen multi-race familys. That is no longer an issue it use to be.

As for this story, if the father wants the boy, better now then a year later. She should give the boy back if the parent is serious about wanting to raise him. There are other children out there that needs parents.

I think a lot of people feel that they are entitled to a baby and if they can't have one themselves, they have a right to adopt one regardless of any objective evaluation of what kind of parents they would be. And when they can't pass the evaluation, they go overseas because it's "easier". Look at all the kids adopted from Russia who have been beaten or killed by adoptive parents in the U.S.- infertile couples who wanted nice white babies and felt it was too much trouble to go through the paperwork and then a few years down the road, decided it was too much hassle to be a parent.

Yes, it's wrong for pregnant women to bilk prospective adoptive parents out of money and then "change their minds" as soon as the kid is born but just because someone wants to adopt a kid doesn't make them a saint either.

There's a lot of racism going on in the whole process as well. How many ethnic babies go unadopted in the U.S. every year? How many handicapped kids? If it's about helping the kid (and not publicity for the parent) why didn't Madonna adopt a black kid from the U.K. or U.S.?

I think it's great to adopt kids and hope to do it myself when I can afford it but I have a pretty dim view of people who go to China or Russia or Guatemala because it's "easier" or "cheaper" or "less of a headache" to get a kid. Maybe taking responsibility for someone else's kid should be a little difficult. And maybe birth mothers don't need to be completely excluded from the kid's life.

who have been beaten or killed by their adoptive parents in the U.S."...please back up your assertion...

that I do not know where to begin my reply. Why don't you actually do some quality research on international adoption before you spout complete nonsense.

I can assure you that it is neither "easier" or "cheaper" as you claim. My husband and I looked into adopting in the US and were told by our agency that we were too old and to not even bother trying. We persisted and were told by authorities we were too old (mid 40s). China on the other hand would let us adopt. It was not cheap. With fees, expenses and travel, it came to about $26,000. Nor did we get a "nice white baby". Our daughter, found abandoned on a doorstep of a small city in Hubei Province at the age of one day, was 16 months old when we brought her home. And it took us over 2 years of paperwork, interviews, more paperwork, fingerprinting, inspections, medical exams and waiting before we were notified by the Chinese we had a daughter. Transnational adoption is not something you embark on on a whim or for the heck of it or ""less of a headache"".

If you do decide to adopt in the US, I hope you are successful. But, don't for one moment think that those of us who adopt transnationally had it easier and cheaper. We don't.

If you ever do look into adoption for yourself, you will find that it is no easier to qualify to adopt overseas than it is to qualify to adopt domestically. Actually, you must qualify in exactly the same way for either type of adoption. Most of the time, the international adoption will require more steps and additional scrutiny.

Perhaps you should do some research into why parents (not wealthy mega-stars) choose to adopt outside the U.S., and then post again.

Thanks!

point is you want someone else to adopt him. period. there's no two ways about this. if you change your mind before the child is adopted i imagine the orphanage is all too happy to let you have your child back...

my best friend just adopted a child in Kazakhstan- they had to be there for about 60days to fulfill the country's adoption laws, and the parents did not sign the full release of parental rights until maybe two weeks before they left the country. Each country is different in how orphanages work. the US has no orphanages.

the real problem in this situation is that the adoptive parents did not fulfill the written laws of that country for adoption, and now problems are arising because of that. I think I remember hearing that the law requires many months of stay before the adoptive parents get full parentage.

According to what I have read, the mother died of malaria soon after the kid was born. In most developing nations, breastfeeding is very common since it's the best nutrients for the child and of course, it's free. But without a mother, this father had no way of feeding his child properly and would do better in the orphanage for a period of time until the child could eat regular foods

it'd be nice for the media to concentrate on REAL news

I see someone who adopted a child in need, and she's being slammed all over this thread. She adopted a child, she didn't buy a slave... unless you think ALL adoption is "child buying and selling."

keep this poor kid from living a dream life for some reason. Earlier the dad pleaded with authorities to get the eff out of the way and just let the adoption go thru. Now he's being pummeled with "how can you let her take your child???" questions with mics in his face and is changing his tune.

intentions are anything but honorable. She has two children of who seem to be normal, happy children and I will assume that she was trying to give a child a good home. She felt drawn to adopt from that part of the world, maybe she felt a bond with him like Angelina Jolie has claimed drew her to the two she's adopted. If the father gave the child up to the orphanage this his rights are gone, IMO.

If he was willing to sign papers he "didn't understand" maybe he's an unfit father!!!

Jeez, all the Madonna haters just can't stand the fact that maybe she was wanting to do something good for an African child. If you have followed her work at all lately, the plight of African orphans has been very much on her mind.

But God/dess forbid she be allowed to do anything about it. By adopting she showing she's racist, imperialist, spoiled, conniving....

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.