I agree. And you're exactly right. Of course, all of us at this board would be better off living with Madonna . It would be a nice life. But I'm talking about the sole fact that this baby boy was living in this horrible poverty stricken village. But IF the father wants the son back, then let him have it. On the other hand I also feel for the father whose child would be taken away. Maybe he could move to UK/America for a better life. When I say he would have a better life with Madonna, I say that because she lives in London and that is undeniably a healthier place to live and a lot easier to live.

Pandora,
About your thought that baby David had been taken without consent, I was informed at length by my sister (she loves madonna) that the father had given Madonna both verbal and written consent in court. Madonna said all of this on Oprah. Aparently the father went far enough to say that he was very thankful Madonna was giving his son a new life.

Will - I'm glad we agree and I see what you're saying. It is difficult since both camps in this situation apparantly don't know exactly what's going on anymore.

Mr. Hollywood - That's the thing, the father has now stated - after the agreement - that he was told one thing which led him to agreeing and now has found out that he's actually agreed to something else, something that he didn't/doesn't want. The negotiating party i.e. childcare/social services and whichever other governing bodies for international adoption, had to translate or interpret to/for him and vice versa on Madonna's side. Madonna is countering this by saying that the father knew the situation beforehand and has now been goaded into saying the opposite.

That is the sad quandary.

And you know, if the father does say that he wants the baby back, I don't think there should be any legal issues and hell, this shouldn't even be publicized -- there's no reason it should matter to us. I don't even think Madonna should have to pay, I'm sure she didn't "STEAL" the baby, especially since what she was/is doing IS a respectful notion. Simply give the baby back if the father wants him. I wish life was that easy and not everything had to be made into a big deal

Exactly Will, I think biological parents (depending on which countries the legislature was In) used to have a phase after separation which allowed them to change their mind(s), however I think it was short and it's generally more used fostering but I'm not sure about the past. If that did happen, and he wanted the child back (and can care/support the child and there's no history of abuse) then that should be allowed. I know it's true that the adopting parent/s can form an attachment to it but the prior parent's attachment is in a whole nother league. In that case, as I said previously, the new parent's attachment would be secondary and they would have to adopt someone else.

Btw - the stealing bit - I said that in the context of if she/anybody knowingly misrepresented/deceived the father/parent to make it 'easier' for him to give up the child. But I also said both her and the father could have been misled, if anyone was misled at all.

i agree that if the father wants his child back, he should obviously be allowed to have his kid returned! however with that being said, he is in africa, never once did he visit david in the orpahnage, and he also doesnt have the resources to take care of david. its a really grey-area situation..

All sales are final.

Apparantly it's not the resources, he has other children (older) as well and implied that he can financially support the child; it's the taking care/managing a baby after the death of the mother that was the hard part (which is perfectly understandable). That hence led to what he is now saying was meant to be a fostering situation not adoption and when he found out it was a permanent adoption he said he can feed the child (i.e. support it) and that is not the reason he let go.

Yep, it's a grey area unless there is a paper or tangible evidence trail.

[U]Madonna makes me feel so weird what everything she done, i don't like her music, but i i love her personality[U]

how come the father and all of the relatives never once visited him in the orphange though? anyway i dont think it matters anymore, i heard today on entertainment ireland that the father has retracted all statements he made.

I can't answer why he never visited and it wouldn't be fair to or accurate without the facts, plus it's not easy to second guess that kind of things because there's different reasons. Some people can't handle visiting for many mental reasons e.g. getting too attached both ways and then possibly having to separate again, confusing the child, maybe they were going to but didn't get to or left it too late and then this happened, some people are advised not to visit or told not to visit for a certain amount of time. As for the relatives, it was the father's choice, other relatives may not be allowed or would need permission, again worried about attachment/confusion or didn't want to get involved. Then again, some people realise they feel differently only when the child will definitately be taken away especially when it's so far away (some people keep track of the child/ren once they are fostered/adopted but keep away at the same time so they don't 'ruin' the situation but that is difficult from Africa to the UK and without the permission of the fostering/adoptive guardian(s). Basically, I can't answer that.

I hope however that the situation has been resolved fairly and that all parties will be able to be at peace. If there was no scandal, the father did not want the child back, he feels he can be ok with the situation and if Madonna has permanent unquestioned custody now that the press leaves it alone and doesn't hassle them.

me too