Out of the London Sun today was the news that Madonna’s adoption of 18 month old Malawian child, David Banda, will be challenged by a Malawian human right’s group. The group has stated an intent to prove in the country’s high court that the adoption is illegal, because apparently there are no defined laws that currently allow for international adoptions there. To my own understanding there are no defined laws, but due to Madonna’s interest in adopting, the high courts were reviewing and beginning to form laws in the event others might wish to adopt orphans as well.

As for the human rights group, one really has to wonder exactly whose “human rights” are being preserved by such an ongoing, and persistent battle. This protest, by all appearances seems to be ignoring the actual rights of the child and his biological father. David’s father, Yohane Banda, was reported to be “fuming” about this recent news, and has been quoted as saying,

"He is happy and healthy. I wish they would leave my son alone."

From what I remember reading back when the placement first occurred, Madonna did things as well as one could expect, even though she is a (gasp) celebrity. She had already been doing charitable work in the country and had developed a love and empathy for it’s people. Later when she decided to add to her family by way of adoption, it appeared only natural to want to adopt a child from this location, after seeing first hand there are so many in need.

Even after the biological father of little David had been located, and all kinds of whispers of ethics and coercion came into play, we found that Madonna had handled things as ethically as possible. A private meeting with Yohane Banda, after she learned of his location, verbally secured his permission for her to adopt his son. I also believe it was also noted she had offered monetary support to the father to raise his son first, but that it was declined by Banda.

So what is the point of this most recent action by the human rights group, led by a Justin Dzonzi? Is returning one child to his respective orphanage (since the father could admittedly not afford to feed him) really the solution to anything? Does Mr. Dzonzi know the actual rate of survival past the age of five years for the children left in even the best available care of those orphanages? For most children in the dire conditions of the third world, being taken in by relatives or adopted when possible, may mean the best chance for their survival. Would Mr. Dzonzi seek to deny little David his survival in the only way that it was made available to him? Kind of makes you wonder. I find myself wondering why we do not hear the name of this group that professes to defend human rights? What exactly do they have to hide from? If this group has a legitimate concern for the protection of the human rights of the child David, then they should clearly state them.

I think that it is beyond that now though. This human rights group should leave David to his new family, and instead set their focus on the many, many children who might not live to see the light of another day in their tiny and poor country of Malawi.

In the News Again - Madonna

Madonna Rocks

Madonna urges increase in African adoption

Photo