Madonna's Adoption Bid

Madonna, the woman who needs no introduction, has been refused the right to adopt a child from Malawi. Chifundo "Mercy" James, a little orphaned girl, will grow up, not in a superstar's home, but in the orphanage she now lives in. The decision was made because the judge in the case, decided that allowing Madonna to adopt would send the wrong signal to human traffickers about how easy it was to secure a child in Malawi.



Now, some will cheer this decision, largely because they don't like Madonna or rich people in general. Some will cheer because they think it sends the right signal to traffickers. I, however, am not cheered by this decision, for one good reason: a child has been denied a loving family.



Chifundo "Mercy" James would have grown up with every advantage possible were she adopted by Madonna. She would "want for nothing". She would receive the best of educations. She would have the best of opportunities. Not only that but she would have a mother who very clearly loves to be a mother and would be a good, warm, nurturing presence in her life. Instead, however, she has the impersonal embrace of an orphanage and all the restricted opportunities that implies.



I rather feel that the judge in the case has not judged this case in particular, but used the case as an opportunity to make an international political point. He has sent a signal to traffickers that getting children out of Malawi might not be so easy. He has chosen to sacrifice the opportunity of one child to actually have a family, so as to prevent the trafficking of the children of Malawi - or at least reduce the perception that trafficking of such children is possible or easy.



Now, while I admire the judge's point and purpose - and agree that it is an important issue, I do feel that he should not have sacrificed Chifundo "Mercy" James' life happiness to make this point. There are other ways to do so. He could have used the publicity, in concert with his government to announce new restrictive laws on the movement of Malawi's children overseas. He could have made it clear that exceptions may be made where the prospects for the child are exceptional - such as they are with Madonna's adoption bid. He could have made it clear that it is only because Madonna offers a good life to Chifundo that the bid is being allowed. There was no need to block the bid to make the point he wished to make.



Apparently, the normal rule for adoption from Malawi, is that the adoptive parent should have lived in Malawi for eighteen months prior to the application. This eliminates almost all possible bids, of course - including Madonna's I presume.



I feel that the judge has not considered the beneficial aspects of an adoption by Madonna. Her celebrity parenting of a child from Malawi, would raise the profile, in the minds of potential parents, of adopting a child from Malawi. Many children who might otherwise have grown up in orphanages, may end up being offered homes, and families, as a result. It can only be good for Malawi to facilitate this.



It should be noted that Malawi is one of the world's poorest countries. Over half of its 12 million people live on less than 1 (yes ONE) dollar a day. Madonna would have been taking Chifundo "Mercy" James out of a situation with such bleak prospects and giving her the life of a daughter of a multi-millionaire (Madonna's fortune is estimated to run into hundreds of millions of dollars).



Madonna's adoption would have inspired many others to reach out to the orphanages of Malawi and give those unfortunate children a family. The rejection of Madonna's bid can only harm the prospects of all children, in the orphanages, who might otherwise have been adopted. Indeed, by rejecting Madonna's bid, the judge is sending an unintended message: "Trying to adopt a child in Malawi is an expensive waste of time and money and even the super-rich like Madonna can't do it, successfully."



What might have been a flood of adoptive parents, inspired by Madonna, may now be not even a trickle.



I think this decision was made for good reasons, but without good reasoning. The wider implications of the decision were not considered. The long-term effects of rejecting the bid for adoptive motherhood for even such an ostensibly well-prepared mother, shall harm, greatly, the prospects of all Malawi's parentless children.



My hope is that Madonna will appeal and that the appeal judge is one with broader vision of the issues at hand. Every orphaned child would be better off with a family, than without one. It should be the first priority of the judges to facilitate the union of orphaned child with willing parents.



Ironically, and perhaps tellingly, the judge's decision not to allow Chifundo "Mercy" James, the benefit of a mother, shows that the state, in Malawi, does not value the life of the individual. Yet, the state, is Chifundo's only parent, in effect, now. This is not encouraging on the issue of what kind of "parent" the Malawian state makes. Certainly, it would have been better for Chifundo to have Madonna as a mother, than to have the orphanage as her only parents. The same applies to any and all Malawian children: an adoptive parent is better than no parent at all. I only wish the judge could see that.



(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.



We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.



This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Celebrity: gift or creative genius?

We live in a celebrity obsessed world. A world of Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, and baby Suri; a world of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and baby Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt; the world of Mel Gibson, Madonna, and Sharon Stone. A world in which Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, James Dean and Marlon Brando are still remembered. From the coverage these people receive, one would think they were the most important people on Earth: but are they? Are they the best of people? Is celebrity the product of natural gift, inner creative genius - or is it a gift of luck, itself?

Some celebrities are certainly gifted. James Woods is profoundly gifted, with an IQ of 180. He may well be the brightest working actor in Hollywood, though perhaps not in the wider world. Madonna's IQ, I once read, is 140 - so she is moderately gifted, on her way to highly gifted. Sharon Stone's is apparently around 150 making her highly gifted. One could argue whether or not these people were geniuses - in the creative sense - and decide, most probably, that they were not: but they are definitely gifted in the sense of IQ.

Is it necessary to be gifted to be a celebrity? The short answer is a clear no, as most would have observed if you have watched celebrity interviews. Many of them are clearly not very intelligent. It seems that luck and perseverance alone, are enough. A pretty face helps, too.

Is celebrity a reward to giftedness? Most certainly not. Most gifted people live relatively successful lives, but few attain fame - there are so many factors involved in that besides talent, or gift, or even simple intelligence.

Ainan Celeste Cawley, my six year old son, is a scientific child prodigy, with a prodigious gift in science, and a grasp of conceptual matters beyond most adults. He is not, however, a celebrity. Scientists generally don't achieve acclaim, even if they produce volumes of quality work. Why is this? Fame is determined by what the public want to know and generally they don't want to know about scientists or science. Apart from Linus Pauling, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, how many scientists, in modern times, have truly made an impression on the public? Very few compared to the vast numbers of scientists who have lived and worked in that period.

Fame, then, is not an inevitable reward for giftedness. To be gifted, a genius, a child prodigy - or a savant - is its own reward. These gifts confer the ability to see more in life, understand more, feel more - and contribute more to life, than the ungifted, untalented, ordinary are able to.

Who is more important to the world: a celebrity, who is ungifted, but famous, or a gifted person who is talented, but unknown? I would say the gifted person, for though they may not be leading a high-profile life, their actual true contribution to life is likely to be greater. This becomes clear once we see through the glamour of fame, and judge the actual merits of their achievements.

Whether or not my children become famous for their achievements, their genius, prodigy, gift provides the only significance that is necessary. That they are gifted is significant. Being a child prodigy, is significant, whether or not that is recognized widely, it does not change their intrinsic worth, which could not be higher.

For me Ainan Celeste Cawley, 6, Fintan Nadym Cawley, 3, and Tiarnan Hasyl Cawley, 9 months are my pantheon of celebrities/little Gods. That few know them, matters little, for their worth and their unique gifts are most evident.

If your children are gifted, or show genius, or prodigy of any kind, then know that that makes them as important to life as anyone. Though the creative among us may often not receive the acclaim they deserve, they remain the most important of people: a world of god-like celebrities notwithstanding.

(If you would like to learn more Ainan Celeste Cawley, six, a scientific child prodigy, and his brothers, go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html )