September 15, 2009 / smh.com.au
Elton John is following a long line of pop stars, Hollywood celebrities and politicians seeking to adopt a child -- and he is not the first to find his private life a problem.
Many controversial comments were made about fellow megastar Madonna's adoption of two children in Malawi. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman and other Hollywood names have also made headlines by adding orphans from impoverished countries to their families.
US actress Mia Farrow adopted 10 of her 14 children in countries ranging from India to South Korea and Vietnam.
The question everyone asks is whether the move is sincere or exploitation.
Sir Elton's declaration that he wanted to adopt a 14 month old boy, Lev, that he saw during a visit to a Ukrainian orphanage has already hit trouble in the East European country.
The government's family ministry said he could not adopt because the singer is not married -- and Ukraine will not recognise his homosexual marriage to longtime partner David Furnish.
Madonna also at first hit resistance to her adoption in Malawi this year of three-year-old Mercy, to become a little sister to David Banda who came from the same impoverished country.
The singer was blocked by a law that she had to spend at least 18 months in Malawi, while also facing criticism from rights groups and the girl's surviving family.
Lawyers for Malawi's Human Rights Commission and Eye of the Child charity at first opposed Madonna. "The courts should make inter-country adoptions an option of last resort," Jones Gulumba, lawyer for Eye of the Child, told one court hearing.
But in June the Malawi Supreme Court eventually ruled in favour of Madonna, who also built a community centre and set up a charity in Malawi to help orphaned children.
Likewise, Jolie is a forceful envoy for the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and some reports say she and Pitt would like to adopt another child to add to Pax, who came from Vietnam in 2007, Zahara who came from Ethiopia in 2005 and Maddox who Jolie adopted from Cambodia with her former partner Billy Bob Thornton.
Jolie and Pitt also have three children of their own, Shiloh, who was born in Namibia in 2005, and twins Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon, born in July, 2008 in France.
"They're the greatest little people I've ever met, and they give me so much joy," Jolie said of her adopted kids.
Today's stars are not the first to build up a brood of children among the world's most fortunate.
In the early 20th century, American singer and dancer Josephine Baker adopted 12 children -- from countries ranging from Finland to Japan, Ivory Coast and Colombia -- in part as part of a protest for the black civil rights movement.
She called them her "Rainbow Tribe" and for a while lived with them in a French chateau.
Walt Disney, founder of the Disney film empire, and legendary film producer and director Cecil B. DeMille both had adopted children. Harpo Marx, part of the Marx Brothers comedy act, adopted four children with his wife.
President Ronald Reagan adopted a son Michael in 1945 when he was an actor married to Jane Wyman.
And so the list goes on from Ewan McGregor, the Scottish actor, who adopted a Mongolian girl in 2006, to Johnny Hallyday, the French rocker, now in his 60s, who with his wife Laeticia has adopted two Vietnamese girls.
Meg Ryan, the US actress, adopted a 14-month-old girl from China in 2007 who she first named Charlotte and then named Daisy.
Many commentators are cynical about Hollywood's motives in making such moves, but Ryan told People magazine, "I never felt like I was on a rescue mission or anything like that. I just really wanted a baby; I was on a mission to connect with somebody, and Daisy and I got to meet each other in this way at this time. We are so compatible."

Comments
Behind the scenes
I often try to imagine what it's like to be a struggling parent living in an impoverished country, knowing there are children being taken-in by wealthy celebrities. I imagine such a hope... such a dream is the equivalent to winning the (American) lottery.
As a parent, I want what's best for my children. If I said money was NOT an issue or a future concern, I'd be lying through my teeth. However, there are some risks I'm not willing to take, no matter how much money is, or may be, at stake. [Meaning, someone would have to kill me before I relinquished ANY of my children to a complete stranger who lived far, far away.... no matter how much was offered or promised. Selfish? Perhaps. Stupid? Maybe. I like to see my "wanting to keep" as being wise and protective... the way God WANTS me to be.]
I remember the first time I heard media coverage about inappropriate sexual activity taking place within an adoptive family. The story revolved around Mia Farrow's adopted daughter and the celebrity's long-time companion, Woody Allen. I was glad the story made the news. I was GLAD the "Happy-ever-after Adoption Story" had some serious bullet holes in it. I thought, foolishly, people would begin serious discussion and ask penetrating questions like: Who are these famous people adopting foreign children, and what's happening to those children after the rush of "a new announcement" has faded away? How much do we really know about the life (and childhood) of celebrities looking to save children from "bad homes"? Just because a person is rich and famous, and known for doing a great job playing certain roles, does that mean that person would make an ideal parent to a child with so many needs? Where are the adopted children now, and how good was their experience? [If they had the power to do it all over again, would they have wanted their lives to be the same, or would they have wanted many things changed?]
None of those questions seemed to get asked... instead the media coverage of the love-affair between Woody and Soon-Yi became tabloid fodder... the sort that made people snicker at the grocery check-out stand, "Well, what did you expect? He's a celebrity."
There is life of the rich and famous, and there is reality for the rest of us common folks. I strongly recommend readers read a brief thread about abuse taking place after adoption, as it is seen/experienced through the eyes of three female adoptees: Adopted to be abused? "Happily-ever-after" the adoption-story? That has yet to be seen.
It is far too soon to see how the children of Madonna and Joelie will fare. Truth be told, I personally would not want to be a child of a celebrity who always seems to crave the spot-light... but that's just me. Perhaps life with a famous family would be great... the travel, the visitors, the opportunties... one can only begin to imagine what life is like when living in American Royalty... the ultimate when it comes to The American Dream. Then again.... life for the chosen adoptee may not be all that different from what many experience, anyway.
Is this a "good reason" to adopt?
"I really wanted a baby"
"I was on a mission to connect with somebody"
Too often I read/hear these words, and too often I start thinking: "Why didn't you find that "special" connection with an adult? Why did you have to have an adult relationship replaced with a child? Is having a baby the only way you can get the love you want for yourself?" [Aren't teens being accused of looking for love in all the wrong places when they find themselves pregnant?]
I think about my own Amother. Her need to be loved and worshipped are the very needs that repulsed me. I did not feel as though it was natural for a grown woman to need so much from her adopted child. [Huge triggering issues, here.] My Amother was not a famous celebrity. My amother was an ordinary woman with a lot of unresolved personal problems. She was on a mission -- her own mission -- a mission, no.. a quest... one that would answer the question: "What would make me feel complete?" I just happened to be a major fallen casualty.
I see many people (women, especially) wanting a baby and wanting to connect with another person... I see it as being normal human-nature. I do NOT think or believe that "search for someone" should be through a baby that can be adopted through an adoption agency.
Celebrities may not want all eyes, ears and interest focused on their private-lives... however, they must know their actions do carry consequences. [Such is the life they have chosen when seeking center-stage.] For many, celebrity stars become heroes to those who want to believe in the rags-to-riches story. [The inspiration being, "I can do that, too!] Many want to live vicariously through these people who appear to be perfect and happy. [Amazing how celebrities can make something "NOT good" cool and glamorous, isn't it?]
The very LEAST celebrities can do before pontificating the virtues of adoption is STUDY the consequences child-removal has on a given society before making that final foreign purchase. [I'm reminded of Ricky Martin, and how he wanted to help save and protect the children in Cambodia, (claiming adoption was the answer for him... )only to choose, later, surrogacy was the way to start/complete his family.]
Adoption is not about the adults who long for something. Adoption is about parents and children, and adapting to change. It would be wise for celebrities to look into the other ways, means and options children and families can be served... all without the removal of said "orphan" child, ready to be packed-up and sent away.
Meanwhile, for those who are interested, a small list of reasons NOT to adopt, below are some reasons found at adoption.com.