Angelina Jolie Can Adopt From Syria. You Can't.

Who knows what to believe when it comes to celebrity "journalism," but it's apparently been confirmed that Angelina Jolie will adopt a child from Syria—something described on the website of the U.S. embassy in Damascus as "a difficult process and often an impossible one." In many countries, celebrity status probably has little effect on adoption matters, but in a country where adoption is "essentially illegal," the perverse effect is that anything pretty much goes—if you've got the required currency. Cash, glamour, celebrity, or all of the above clearly come into play.

In countries that are large players in international adoption, like China, Korea, and Kazahkstan, hard and fast rules apply, designed to protect both the child and the adoptive parent. Placing children through an elaborate system is meant to prevent corruption, kidnapping, and blackmail, and although there have been notorious failures, in general it works. In countries where adoption is handled privately, there's far more room for almost any kind of trouble you can imagine, but if you can get past the initial barriers to entry, there are advantages—if you're Angelina. Most countries place some limit on the number of children in a family. None would allow only one parent in a married couple [correction: or partnership] to adopt a child, as the Daily Mail reports is happening here, and all also require substantial investigation into whether a family is ready in various ways to adopt—although it's hard to imagine a social worker refusing to endorse Jolie.

In other words, Jolie may not be qualified to adopt in the standard way, particularly if it's true that her partner [husband] isn't on board. So one possible objection to this adoption is clearly correct: It's not fair. But it's hard to argue that a child would be better off in an orphanage than as part of the Jolie clan, or that she won't grow up better off. An orphaned Syrian girl has few educational opportunities in her future and very limited social options. I also find it hard to argue that the addition of another mouth to feed is going to change much for the family, other than in the way any sibling does. They're a large, unusual clan at either six or seven, and whether they're being raised by nannies or by Jolie and Pitt, their life is what it is. If Jolie wanted to have another baby, she could. If she feels like she can cope with another child—and with her partner's [husband's] unease, if that part of the story is true—then man, good luck to her. I have four kids under 8, and I couldn't do five, but I'd never say there aren't plenty of people out there better at this than me.

Correction: The original post implied, incorrectly, that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were married. The author--while noting that no less a source than Star Magazine steered her wrong--regrets the error.

Tags: adoption, Angelina Jolie, Syria

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

KJ Dell'Antonia Former Manhattan lawyer and prosecutor, Xxtra Small reviewer, parent of four. Lover of books and bacon.

Comments

I collect kids! All Kinds!

By: Devaluing Children | Tue, 11/17/2009 - 03:24

Angelina and all the other celebrities make the mistake of bringing on negative criticism by flaunting the children, or should I say babies, because like the other post said "older kids are too hard". Every single time they adopt a baby from another country they always never seem to be camera shy, as if they want everyone to know. If the fact that Angelina has lots of money makes her qualified to be a parent, then lots of people could adopt in these countries that rarely do let it happen, it's not her money, it's her fame. She wouldn't fit into the best criteria to be an above average parent suitable for adoption if she were anybody else. The fact that Pitt isn't 100 % behind her with this and will not be adopting also, is a HUGE red flag. People like her do this as if it were a vast collection of different butterflies or stamps. Her adoption of all these kids is a way of saying she is real, and compassionate as well as sincere. It wouldn't be perceived this way if they did it quietly without the well invited media. Look at Oprah, she gives money away like candy, and she makes dang sure everybody knows about it also, when's the last time Oprah gave money to a cause? Do you know? Sure you know!, she tells everyone all about it! Same as adoption, why not do it as privately as possible. I think it devalues the babies and in the long run these kids will have lost their culture, self identity and feel out of place. If she would say "I want a baby from a foreign country" that would be honest, but instead she says she wants to help the kids. If it were really about the kids, she would work with everybody her name and money would allow to open up more avenues for people that want to adopt but can't afford to go through the process of adopting a baby here, let alone fly to Syria, spend days and a fortune to add another to the collection. It is a good thing though that she has the money to hire people to raise her kid's while she globe-trots the world making movies, and I hope Brad and Angelina are secure in their "relationship", otherwise they are just adding more hearts to the mix to break.

Foreign Adoption

By: Lauraellen2 | Tue, 11/17/2009 - 01:57

While I think adopting from China is wonderful, they have that one child per family rule and seem to throw baby girls away, I can't help feeling that a better option for all the rich celebrities would be to take their money and build better orphanages with lots of help thus providing real home-like atomospheres and parent-like workers. Enough money could actually do this and would also provide much needed jobs for many people as child care workers, teachers, nurses, doctors etc. We are quick to criticize the orphanages and the conditions in which these children are brought up but all the Angelinas and Madonnas have what it takes to help hundreds if not thousands of these children instead of just one.

international adoption

By: bella | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 22:59

Wow, I just had to make a comment regarding people's earlier views on international adopting. I agree, I do think people should be aware and should seriously consider adopting in their own country and kudos to those who do. But being international myself, I admire people who take that leap adopting outside the country, mind you i dont agree with anyone using it for popularity and creating such crazy-media attention, if that is indeed the intent.
People from such international countries mentioned DO NOT have opportunities remotely available in America for orphans. So please do not berate people who adopt from abroad. I understand that some or even most americans cannot relate to growing up without opportunities or advantages as those offered in america and are quick to judge. I would consider adopting within the US because i know there are many less fortunate but I would never ever (neither my husband who is american) not consider adopting from abroad. Please open your eyes, and see that there are countries outside the US, believe it or not even less privileged than many in america.

and hey if Angelina can adopt from syria giving one child a chance which cannot happen with a regular american...all the power...let at least one child experience privilege. She is going crazy though with the adopting from everywhere....in her case i agree she should look into local adoptions:P

Celebrity adoptions are ridiculous

By: kg1985 | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 17:13

Momto2, I agree that no one has a right to criticize those who adopt internationally. However, I agree with stumpy, that when it comes to adopting, especially for celebrities, people should consider adopting children from their own country first. I cannot stand how Angelina and other stars such as Madonna, have exploited and bombarded the media with their adoptions. They are getting way too much attention, which I think feed into their already narcissistic personalities, and I truly believe they do these adoptions to make them feel less guilty about their extremely extravagant lifestyles and the tons of money they make. If they want to do something good for the world, they can do it privately without being in the limelight for it. Children all over the world deserve a good home and loving family, and it is totally unfair that the likes of Angelina and Madonna get to adopt their designer foreign babies (babies mind you, not older children because that's too much of a hassle)like they're buying another pair of shoes!

In addition, I am a strong proponent in that more Americans should adopt babies and older children from their own country. I have worked with children of all ages for the past few years in after-school programs and I've also volunteered for Big Brothers and Big Sisters as a Big Sister for two local teenage girls in Las Vegas. So, Momto2 if you ask what I've done for local children, you can see that I've done a lot, and I think more people should too. Lastly, my personal reccomendation for Angelina, Madonna, and any other shallow celebrity is to put their money where there mouth is and do some good for their home country. Angelina should adopt a child from her hometown of Los Angeles and as for Madonna I think she should set her sights on her home state of Michigan. Yes, Madonna is originally from Michigan, and knowing that Detroit currently has the highest unemployment rate and horrible crime rate, maybe she could do some real good by helping out her fellow man and doing some charity work there. Lord knows they need it, and I bet she has earned more money from the people of Michigan than in Malawi!!!!

Know whereof you speak

By: momto2 | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 11:49

stumpy007, before you go spouting off, know whereof you speak. you're awfully critical of adoptive parents who choose to go the international route. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder WHY people, including my husband and myself, choose to adopt from China, for example? You're right. There are thousands of US children in need of good homes. Parents who adopt internationally aren't anti US kids, and contrary to what you'd obviously like to believe, we don't do this for status symbol purposes! We do research and thoughtfully choose the path that is best for our families and the one we're the most comfortable with. The US system has many severe flaws that I won't go into here. If you're going to be critical of someone or something, be critical of our system, not the parents who simply want to build a family. Personally, we researched adoption from the US, 4 Asian countries, 2 eastern European countries, 3 African countries and 2 central American countries. Like every couple facing parenthood, be it through birth, adoption, or fostering, the choices involved are deeply personal. How dare you criticize ANYONE for choosing how best to build his or her family! By the way, what have you done for all of those thousands of US kids who need homes?

A matter of opinion...

By: Junecleo | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 13:38

"But it's hard to argue that a child would be better off in an orphanage than as part of the Jolie clan, or that she won't grow up better off."

The author DOES state specifically her opinion that a child is better off with Jolie than in an orphanage. That is really a matter of perspective. A child brought here by a celebrity is going to live a very different life, certainly, but look at the "real" lives of celebrities... drug use, paparazzi everywhere, loose sex, huge divorce rate, if they marry at all..., not to mention the very nature of the lifestyle dictates that the children will be largely raised by staff members instead of the adoptive parent(s). There are more points to being "better off" than money and celebrity.
If Angelina really wants to help children, why doesn't she foot the bill for other US couples who would make great parents but can't afford to adopt internationally? She could help people in Syria adopt children from their own orphanges. AND with all the waiting children in the U.S., why does she feel the need to go bribe countries with closed adoption, and adopt only the very young? She certainly has the resources to help special needs children. Add the rumors that she is apparently adopting this time without her partner's agreement, and it all adds up to a very unstable environment, in my own opinion.

Stupid Rich Woman

By: stumpy007 | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 08:27

How bout all you idiotic, snooty, follow the fad women stop adopting Chinese and Malinese and Somalian, or whatever babies and start taking care of the thousands of American children that need your help. Also while I'm at it, the US Government should stop building roads and schools in other countries and start building roads and schools in the US!

Someone believed something they read in the Star?

By: cougar1ne | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 05:33

If you believe what you read there, you'll believe anything!
Next week's headline:
"The martians are coming!"

*shrug*

By: sugar_k | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 11:39

Adoption is inaccessible to lots of couples who would make great parents. Anybody who can't scrape together the fee of $40,000+ is out of luck. I don't see how this particular unfairness is any different except that there's an overexposed celebrity involved.

I have very mixed feelings

By: _Nancy_ | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:42

The whole Jolie-Pitt thing has an air of the freak show about it - uber-parenting writ large on the international stage. I think it is grotesque that countries are so desperate for good will that they will pander to the whims of a couple of over-hyped actors just narcissistic enough to convince themselves that it's okay to close down Namibia so that the birth of their child, Shiloh Nouvel (that's "new savior" cause you know, any kid produced by Pitt and Jolie must be the Messiah) can be oh-so-"special" and that it's okay to swoop into Syria to snag a pretty baby to add to their collection.

On the other hand, I'm sure these children will have good lives and the Jolie Pitts are good parents but that doesn't excuse the breath-taking arrogance with which celebrities operate or the weird combination of pathos and cynicism that makes countries prepared to hawk their children in hopes that a little star dust will rub off on them.