Angelina and Madonna: Why All the Fuss? an Exploration of the Rights of the Child and Intercountry Adoption within African Nations

InJuIy of 2005, it was reported that Angekna Joke was adopting a baby girl from the African country of Ethiopia.1 Joke used a private adoption agency to faciktate die proceeding and was under the bekef that the baby's parents had died from AIDS. An Ethiopian official pointed out that Joke had met the two most important conditions for adoption, which are "economic capabikties" and passing a background check with the pokce.2 Joke named the baby Zahara Marley Joke, and the adoption went relatively smoothly, with the media largely praising Joke for her benevolent disposition which motivated her to give Zahara a kfe with more opportunities. In October of 2006, it was reported that Madonna intended to adopt a child, David Banda, from the African country of Malawi.3 Madonna, who helps to fund six orphanages in the country, evidendy spent almost a year attempting to adopt a chkd. She was granted only temporary custody of David, and chkd welfare was charged to regularly monitor and assess the famky at their residence in England over a period of eighteen months. The reaction to the Joke intercountry adoption stands in sharp contrast to the international criticism Madonna has faced as a result of her attempt to adopt David from Malawi. Madonna spent a great deal of time defending the adoption, not just in the media, but also in court. There have been accusations that Madonna did not fokow the proper procedures when adopting David despite being granted an interim adoption order by Malawi's High Court in October.6 There are two significant differences between Madonna's adoption of David and Joke's adoption of Zahara. First, Malawi has a state provision which bars adoption by any appkcant who is not a resident of Malawi, and there are individuals who bekeve this should be interpreted to mean that international adoptions are ikegal.7 The second significant difference is the fact that Madonna was aware that David's father was akve and met with him before the adoption took place.8 This Development primarky attempts to address the concerns that are associated with the latter of the two differences. David's birth father stated that he placed his son in an orphanage, after the death of his wife, for fear that David would die if he remained in his father's care.9 This fear was not motivated by concerns that he might intentionaky harm his son, but rather was a result of his inabikty to provide David with the food and medicine necessary for his survival.10 Already having lost two chkdren to malaria, David's father sacrificed a relationship with his son with the hope that David would have a better life.11 This Development argues that the international community should focus its energy on finding ways in which to support African famikes. Birth parents need this support so that they are not forced to place their chkdren into orphanages when the chkd has famky members who are wilkng but unable to care for them. African chkdren who are placed in orphanages are often adopted by individuals kving outside of Africa, thereby leaving them without connections to dieir countries of origin. This Development further supports the goals laid out in the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Chkd ("African Charter"),12 which include restricting intercountry adoption to an option of last resort. Although this Development seeks to encourage the international community to help improve the situations of citizens in African countries, it does not argue that intercountry adoption is wrong or that intercountry adoptions should be discontinued. Instead it attempts to show that intercountry adoption should not be seen as a solution to a much greater problem. If and when intercountry adoption is allowed, it should be properly implemented, monitored, and enforced, while conclusively evaluating the possible effects, both negative and positive, of intercountry adoption on the child. Part I introduces a brief history of Africa, which is followed in Part II by an investigation into the roles played by the different treaties that address intercountry adoption. …