[SchmennaLeigh]

The following article was put in the "Entertainment" section of the LA Times. If you are as unamused as I am by the language used, please email your thoughts to the email addresses below. Along with some others who are touched by adoption, I have written and asked for a retraction and apology for lack of care and concern of those touched by adoption. We are not a joke. We are not the butt of a joke. And children should never be.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...2.story?page=1 (Was open to the public until backlash started. Now requires free membership to read.)

How to Shop for Kids the Brangelina Way

Angelina's "looking at different countries" to find another child to adopt. We weigh some likely possibilities.
By Leslie Gornstein, Special to The Times



Less than a month after giving birth to her first biological daughter, Angelina Jolie said Tuesday that she plans to adopt another child. The Oscar-winning actress already has two adopted tykes — a boy, Maddox Chivan, from Cambodia, and a girl, Zahara Marley, from Ethiopia. Jolie also has her hands full with new baby Shiloh Nouvel. (We hear Shiloh's father is an actor.)

"We're looking at different countries," Jolie told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "And it's gonna be the balance of what would be the best for Mad and for Z right now. Another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids."

Now that Cambodia and Ethiopia are, you know, so yesterday, where might the next Jolie-Pitt adoptee be? Some likely possibilities:

CHINA

This country is like a machine — an adorable, adoptable-children machine. More than 7,900 rugrats adopted last year came from China. If Jolie seeks her next child in this country, she'll most likely get a girl; only 5% of available children are boys.

Estimated total cost: $20,000 to $25,000

Upside: Babies! Squadrons and squadrons of little babies!

Downside: Only a limited number of singles may adopt. (The exception: special-needs kids.) And when Jolie isn't growing her family, she's busy denying marriage rumors. Also, Jolie would have to go through an agency approved by the Chinese; no private adoptions permitted. That could mean less discretion than the publicity-picky star might like.

Likelihood: Low. Jolie already has two girls. Add a third, and that makes for a perilously outnumbered Maddox Chivan Jolie-Pitt. Jolie says she wants "balance," which probably means a boy, and China isn't the most logical place to find one.

RUSSIA

This country is the second biggest supplier of adoptable moppets. More than 4,600 kids came from Russia last year.

Estimated total cost: $30,000 to $40,000

Upside: Ample pickin's. Ratio of boys to girls is 1 to 1. And if Jolie's plans for "balance" call for an older child, this is also a good country; in 2004, almost half of the children looking for parents were ages 1 to 4.

Downside: No private adoptions here either. And maybe some bad blood. In 2004, British and Russian papers buzzed that Jolie was preparing to adopt a Muscovite orphan boy named Gleb. If there was such a failed plan, then Jolie's relationship with the Russians may be as frosty as a St. Petersburg ice sculpture.

Likelihood: High. Unless the Gleb tale is true. Then low.

KAZAKHSTAN

A rising contender in family-building, this Central Asian country adopted out about 750 kids last year.

Estimated total cost: $30,000

Downside: Jolie had better have time to kill. The country requires adoptive parents to visit for at least a month before it will part with a child. Kazakhstan also insists on yearly progress reports detailing an adopted child's welfare, until the kid turns 18. One other factor: Like orphans in Russia, Kazakh children under 6 months are not available for adoption.

Upside: The month-long visit can be split into two trips.

Likelihood: Low. This is Jolie. She is on a schedule, people. She has movies to make and wells to build and diseases to eradicate. That month-long stay could be a deal-breaker.

SOUTH KOREA

Lots of adopted kids come from here. It ranks No. 4 in international adoptee output, having found homes for 4,630 little ones last year.

Estimated total cost: $20,000 to $28,000

Upside: A nice place to get a very tiny infant, which seems to be Jolie's adoptee size of choice. Ninety-five percent of available South Korean children are under 1 year; Jolie could get a baby as young as four months. Plus, she could phone in her baby order from her VIP suite at the Raffles L'Hermitage in Beverly Hills; South Korea does not require aspiring parents to visit.

Downside: Only couples married for three years are eligible to adopt.

Likelihood: Low. Brad doesn't appear to be getting down on one knee anytime soon.

UKRAINE

A dark-horse contender. About 820 international adoptions sprang from this country last year.

Estimated total cost: $30,000

Upside: Ukraine has announced plans to open a brand-new adoption authority this month. That could mean a pileup of kids who have been waiting for new mommies. And Jolie certainly will appreciate the variety?

Downside: A kid needs to be available for a year before she can snatch one, unless the child is ill.

Likelihood: A toss-up.

SOURCES: Children's Hope International, U.S. Department of State, Adoptive Families magazine.

//

Email addresses:
readers.rep@latimes.com
letters@latimes.com

Again, I understand that this was posted in the Entertainment section but I don't believe that should be an excuse to speak of adoption and children in such trivial terms. That said, do not kill the messenger. If you think this article is fine, feel free to email them as well as I'm sure they would like to hear your opinion as well as I'm sure their inboxes are filling with unhappy toned emails as I type. You don't have to share my opinion. I'm just stating my own and encouraging others to speak out.

[Leigh131313]

blah. How annoying.

[akcskye]

I agree, it is a foul article toward adoption, however, the author conveys their point quite well.

Great point, horribly written...you know?

You've got to admit, Angelina DOES sound like she's shopping for babies.

[pwheatle]

I totally disagree with the shopping for babies comment. SHe is no different than any other adoptive parent choosing what country to adopt from. I might add that she generally leaves the country she adopted from in somewhat a better state then when she found it. Don't get me wrong...I am not a huge Angelina groupy or Brangelina either but it irks me when I see her ridiculed for the way she is growing her family. Her name escapes me now but Woody Allens exwife got the same nonsense thrown her way too after she adopted nine or so children internationally the majority of whom had special needs.
We need to be careful as to throwing stones in this lifestyle of adoption.
Tricia

[DCMomLady]

Mia Farrow

[pwheatle]

Right, Mia Farrow, thanks.

[akcskye]

Whether Angelina "shops" for a baby or not, I don't know...but the tone is in her presentation.

She doesn't seem like she's longing for children...she's so matter of fact like "lets see what else I can get".

Good for her if her feelings behind adoption are sincere...she just has a very poor way of communicating it.

Not throwing stones, just personal observation.

[ocracoke]

Kristi,

I have to disagree with you here. She, unlike any other celebrity, is with her children constantly. If she travels, they travel. If she works, they are on set with her. I think she was strange but I think she has matured and become a mother. She seems very family oriented to me. And I think she has done something amazing that many other celebrities have not been able to achieve -- bring adoption into the forefronts of our minds. Mia Farrow did not send thousands flocking to adoption. Jamie Curtis did not send thousands to adoption. Tom and Nicole did not send thousands to adoption. And most recently Meg Ryan did not send thousands to adoption. I don't mean to make any judgment on any of the others when I say that -- I am sure they have been amazing parents. ButI think that Angelina has made a difference in the lives of many children by planting the seed in other people's brains. Of course, I may be biased about that since I am adopting from Ethiopia (I did make my decision to do so just one short week before she made her announcement of her adoption). But even more then the whole Brangelina aspect of the article, what made me angry about this article was the tone and the words. This a major city newspaper calling our children "rugrats" and "moppets." I may develop cutsie little nicknames for her but I don't appreciate them doing it -- it sounds condescending. I really felt like the tone of the article was that people adopt from a specific country to be trendy. I doubt that is the case for most people. So I wrote LA Times a letter and I suggested that they write articles about the realities of adoption. Write stories about the trials and successes of things that I read hear each day. Write articles about people who have been touched in some way by adoption -- adoptee, birth parent and adoptive parent. I just think that they could have taken a far more considerate, educational, and responsible approach to adoption then they did with that article. Just my opinion.

Samantha

[crick]

To me, it's not a matter of my opinions of Angelina, rather the way the article takes adoption as a whole and makes a huge mockery of it. That is the crux of it for me and it sickens me that something so close and dear to me is out there for pure entertainment value.

It mocks and demeans every single child/family that has grown from adoption...nothing entertaining about that, imo.

[akcskye]

Please don't get me wrong...I am NOT supporting the article as written. I think it is a travesty as well.

I just can kind of see past the horrible writing to what the author was trying to say in the way Angelina has behaved.

I don't know...to me, she's kind of got the Lay's Potato Chip attitude..."no one can adopt just one".

I am glad she is raising adoption awareness, but to me, she has never seemed sincere about it. More like a media ploy.

But, that is ONLY a vibe that *I* am getting, from what I see from the media. NONE of us knows what really goes on with her, except for her.

Just remember, I AM agreeing with you all...I think the article is horrible...a HUGE disservice to the adoption community.

[randloar]

I have to agree that the writer of the article is the person that has made adoption appear as shopping for babies. From actual interviews where Angelina has discussed her children, there has been no hint that she is "shopping for children", and for her to say that they are "looking at different countries", well to me that sounds rather logical as that is what we ALL have done to determine which country "fits" us best right now, and that can change over time. From what I have seen personally, Angelina has done a good job of showing people that these are her kids, and she loves them for who they are.

To me, the tone in the article should not be blamed on her (albiet she has her other issues), but should be attributed to the author, lets put the blame where it belongs! On the positive side, the content of the article does give the general public a small bit of insight into some of the differences between the different countries and their requirements (that is a very common question, "why Kaz and not China"?), so it does give just a bit of a feel for some of the differences.........just mho....

[rtsmom]

I don't follow the Brangelina thing closely but, if indeed, they have publicly announced that they will adopt again, I would expect part of their motivation is to communicate that adoption is just as special as having bio kids. Now that they have a bio-daughter, I think it's a great thing that they want to adopt again. For me, it communicates positives about adoption, and I suspect they want the world to get that message... that their bio-daughter is no more special to them than their adoptive son and daughter [and child(ren)-to-be].

I'm going to let the reporter's flippant writing style just roll off my back and focus on the positive adoption awareness that Angelina has brought forth. From what I've seen, she loves all her kids deeply and is a very involved mommy. I think she has grown up A LOT and I admire her openness regarding forming families.

Janet

[SanInUtah]

I replied, not because I was necessarily offended by the tongue-in-cheek article but because she didn't focus it on American children as a priority.

You can say whatever you think about Angelina Jolie (and I think she's great!) but that woman loves her babies. If she wants 5 more then God bless her and her partner.

The author of that article just seemed myopic to me.

[Kindreds]

I don't think the article was mocking adoption, but is mocking Angelina ()and Brad to a certain degree. When it comes to Angelina, either people love her or hate her, there does not appear to be much of a middle ground.

The article did point out some of the challenges for adopting internationally. Visitation requirements, marriage requirements etc. I think it raised awareness that it is not easy to adopt internationally.

I think many people suspect the motivation of Angelina and only time will tell the impact she has on her children. Adolescence will be the test for sure for her and for Brad if they are still together. I am in the group that has suspicions of her motivation, but again only time will tell. She definitely is a woman who needs to be in control and adopting internationally gives her the control she needs when she find a country that meets her needs,

[akcskye]

Thank you Kindreds!

My thoughts exactly. I think I am like the writer in the God AWFUL article...have the right thought, and a poor way of expressing it.

You said exactly what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by Kindreds

I don't think the article was mocking adoption, but is mocking Angelina ()and Brad to a certain degree. When it comes to Angelina, either people love her or hate her, there does not appear to be much of a middle ground.

The article did point out some of the challenges for adopting internationally. Visitation requirements, marriage requirements etc. I think it raised awareness that it is not easy to adopt internationally.

I think many people suspect the motivation of Angelina and only time will tell the impact she has on her children. Adolescence will be the test for sure for her and for Brad if they are still together. I am in the group that has suspicions of her motivation, but again only time will tell. She definitely is a woman who needs to be in control and adopting internationally gives her the control she needs when she find a country that meets her needs,