The crucial question

'But, "If there is no love in the family, is there any love for him?" asks Banda,..'

This question to me indicates an understanding of what this is all about. One or both of the parents in the constructed family is a fair-weather friend. When the going gets tough, they refuse to put in the hard work of resolving their differences, but call it quits, presumably to go looking for someone more agreeable to whatever indiosyncrasies sent them on a crash course. Parenthood is unique in that such an option does not exist. A child can leave home at sixteen, and so can the parents opt out of the relationship, but until that milestone is reached, parent and child are stuck with each other for good or ill. Whether you daddy is loving and supportive, or whether he merely buys you things, but hits you if you mention the little white rocks in his mysterious backpack, he is still your daddy and you are stuck with him. Parents who walk away from each other, knowing how hard this will hit their children, are not able to put anyone else first, their kids, their spounse, their relationship. They are, in short, too immature to be responsible for the welfare of someone else, heaps of the ready notwithstanding.

It sounds like David's father, er, the original one, is having second thoughts about the decision to hand over his child. Maybe he should act on them. It sounds as if he and/or his new wife knows how to keep a family together, and so this would represent a better choice for any kid. Money is replaceable, obtainable, sometimes worthless, throw-away stuff. It is the soul's capital one must look after. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God. These words have not survived for the number of years they have, if they were merely a pretty phrase.

Second thoughts? Thirds? Do I hear fourths?

"It sounds like David's father, er, the original one, is having second thoughts about the decision to hand over his child. Maybe he should act on them. It sounds as if he and/or his new wife knows how to keep a family together, and so this would represent a better choice for any kid."

Not to be pro-rich-white-person, but if he knew how to keep a family together, wouldn't he have done so, instead of dumping the kid in an orphanage?

In fact, in 2006 he was adamant that the adoption go through, lest David be returned, where he would "surely die."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15429329

What this really sounds like is that David did not get him enough moolah.

I call b*llshit

"Parents who walk away from each other, knowing how hard this will hit their children, are not able to put anyone else first, their kids, their spounse, their relationship. They are, in short, too immature to be responsible for the welfare of someone else, heaps of the ready notwithstanding."

This may be true in the case of Madonna and Ritchie, but it is by no means always true as your statement seems to suggest. I have no desire to air the details of my personal llife in this very public forum, but suffice to say ending a relationship has been the best thing for all three parents of my child and has given her the benefit of three loving parents and two biological parents -- who have made a point of fashioning a respectful relationship that puts the needs of our child front and centre. When we were both desperately unhappy living together, I think my child would have been forced to live in an unhappy home. Now she has two happy ones. If you were a kid, which would you prefer?

Sometimes people just aren't suited for the long haul, but circumstances can put them together and make them parents. Life happens. Because it doesn't always go according to plan doesn't mean one is selfish or unfit to parent.

In general terms, now...

Oooh, I had so hoped this one wouldn’t appear! Why do we have to make it personal? I happen to not share the philosophy, that one is ‘made’ a parent. We all realize that we must manage our faculties in general. Intelligence, earning power, social skills etc. Why would our procreative capabilities be the grand exception? If we are just not cut out for the long haul, we shouldn’t become, or make ourselves, parents, for children are a long haul. They also happen, in my experience, to be the most conservative part of mankind. And, no matter how much we will rationalize that ‘it was better this way’, conveniently we will not get a qualified input from those over whose heads we make our decisions. My postulate is they always lose in a breakup. That it is not as bad as if it had been worse, is a lousy rationalization

I could point to numerous cases in my own and my significant other’s extended families, of breakups, which cast very long shadows indeed. In retrospect you can’t help asking yourself, whether most of these conflicts could not have been solved and the relationships have been helped to work, had a wise impartial person been available to intercede. The trouble with families is that there is always partiality, and members with their own hidden agendas, who are willing to fan the flames and enjoy the drama. This may or may not apply to your case, I do not need to know, but my guess is that somewhere down the road, a good many ‘separaters’ regret their decision, only some brand of pride keeps them from going back.

I believe two components make for not crashing: one needs to look around long and good before marrying. Often, the idea of what else is ‘out there’ is wildly unrealistic. Truth is, it’s more of the same as what we already have. It helps a lot to know that for sure. The other one is the ability to take that important step back and do a lot of reality checking, and then ask people one trusts for their take on things. If you know no one you trust, this is a good starting point for working with the most likely problem person: you. The lack of ability to put trust in anyone but you is a serious impairment in forming and keeping relationships.

Sorry I am not one of these polite people you can emasculate and silence by making it personal. And in the case of children and their welfare, there is no limit to how impolite I am willing to get.

Is that really so?

“…if he knew how to keep a family together, wouldn't he have done so, instead of dumping the kid in an orphanage?”

It sounds to me as if the man had simply reached the limits of his resources and had to make the very difficult choice of giving up the child to an institution which would at least feed him, something he could not be sure of his own ability to do.

In the article, I do not see any track of logic to pick up, where ‘not enough moolah’ would somehow fit in. It looks to me that David’s father expresses worry that he has put his child into a ‘machinery’ where he has no control, and which could be hurtful to the child, but there was no other choice, because he could not keep enough food on the table.

I do not in all honesty know much of the socio-economics of Malawi, but I do know the meaning of ‘subsistence farming’. There is generally no margin for mishaps of any kind. If they occur anyhow, it may indeed mean loss of one or more family members. If crops were poor, this would not be an unreasonable claim to make.

Are we superimposing our own brand of ‘cleverness’ on this individual? And if we are, why does that interpretation come so readily into our thoughts and flow onto the paper – sorry, screen? Maybe we need to question ourselves more on this. We could be the jaded ones here, who think there are no other kinds out there but our own. We got their number, oh, yeah!

Making it personal

"Sorry I am not one of these polite people you can emasculate and silence by making it personal. And in the case of children and their welfare, there is no limit to how impolite I am willing to get."

I'm not making anything personal, other than to point out an example in real life which puts paid to your theory.

"If we are just not cut out for the long haul, we shouldn’t become, or make ourselves, parents, for children are a long haul."

How does one know at the start whether or not a relationship will endure? A relationship that doesn't last doesn't mean one can't raise their child and do it in such a way that they grow up well-balanced loving individuals.

Your one size fits all theory simply doesn't work in the real world.

Seeing yeye to eye - or not

"How does one know at the start whether or not a relationship will endure?"

Well catastrophes do happen. One may end up under a truck, or be hit by some fatal illness, but the fact that does escape many is that as long as there is life, there is hope. Building and maintaining an enduring relationship is like any other undertaking in one's life. It takes a conscious effort to learn how, and then to live by the rules one has hammered out and tested. I am not just talking about after the wedding, but also about knowing what counts in a partner, knowing what you must find in that other person in order to make a go of it, and then looking for it in a very deliberate way. Never mind the career path, that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about the way the cerebral cortex is folded up, and how that manifests in what counts for that person.
This is stuff to learn from one's parents and what they do. That is why breakups are bad, because they fail to teach conflict resolution and what makes it work, or not.

In a discussion, you do not count as simply 'an example'. You are partial to your own choices and must necessarily think you did the right thing. Therefore, the way you see your own history is not valid proof of anything.

I did not decide that one size fits all. Reality did. Try to familiarize yourself with Steven Covey's essay about The Law of the Farm. There are things you cannot cram, or swing, or bend, or discuss with, without penalty being paid by someone, sometime, somewhere.

Proof

The fact that I have a better relationship with my ex now than when we were together and a happy, well-adjusted child isn't proof? My history is proof enough for me I guess... because I lived in the alternative and can compare.

The differences are

The differences are cultural. Banda comes from a place where people (and more often, possibly, women) do not walk away when they are unhappy. They suffer in silence and push on, they have fewer opportunites. This in itself may be something to be commended, but it isn't the way our culture is, not now, and probably never will be again. If Madonna and Guy fight when they are together, it is better for them to be apart and for David to live more peacefully with one or the other (or poor dear- shuttle back and forth on private jets between two luxury estates). As long as they instill in him good values, and a respect for his homeland, he'll grow up to be a fine young man. There is no reason to assume there is no love for him simply because his parents have separated.
Another upside- he can fall in love with a woman who will have a much better chance of not dying in childbirth... and that, I'm sure, will make him very happy.

Or he could even fall in

Or he could even fall in love with a man, coming to think of it.... and it would be (mostly) socially accepted.

Big words, but....

“…it isn't the way our culture is, not now, and probably never will be again…”

Does it occur to you, that ‘suffering in silence’ or leaving the scene aren’t the only choices? There is the one of working on the relationship. A marriage is not a pair of shoes, it is a living, dynamic entity, highly plastic and with all kinds of possibilities for growth and learning. Learning isn’t necessarily a painless process, because it may mean letting go of cherished notions. But if we are not willing to do that, if we are totally in the grip of consumerism even in the human department, as in ‘I am not amused, happy, comfortable’, etc., then of course there is no qualified action we are capable of or willing to try, and consequently, we won’t learn anything or gain any wisdom.

The fact that you, stump, have a better relationship now does prove to me, that there is every possibility that your choice of each other was right in the first place, and only whatever pressure being married placed on you made it crash. You may have had the choice of confronting that pressure together and working through it, and maybe you could have had the great relationship and still have each other as well. Maybe you didn’t have qualified help to work through things. This is a lot of ‘maybes’ but you keep pushing your personal situation into the picture, which makes it imperative on others to address it. My guess is you wouldn’t be doing it if you didn’t have unanswered doubts.

My only reason for being in this discussion is that if I can inspire even one pair of people to think twice and not go all cold and call it quits, but rather take a few more turns of looking seriously and honestly at themselves and what they’re all about, then it would be good.

We all come into a twosome with some baggage, and gaining insight and figuring how to work it together is the key. I sincerely hope that the balanced, inquisitive, caring approach is still part of ‘our culture’.

"The fact that you, stump,

"The fact that you, stump, have a better relationship now does prove to me, that there is every possibility that your choice of each other was right in the first place, and only whatever pressure being married placed on you made it crash."

We weren't married and your presumptions are way off. Instead of telling me I'm wrong, perhaps you have some cherished notions in need of re-thinking?

Not trying to be a smart-ass above, but I really think you are just as guilty of seeing the situation only through your own eyes without considering the myriad circumstances that can bring unexpected blessings. Catch my not-so-subtle drift?

(Sigh!)

"...perhaps you have some cherished notions in need of re-thinking?..."

I don't deal in cherished notions. I get more of a kick out of going round a bend in the road and seeing something I never dreamed of.

Yes, I catch your drift. I had just hoped this would not be about you and me, but about the issues. That's why I complained about the personal note earlier on. As far as blessings go, I have been around the clock, and have had to deal with any possible permutation one can be dealt in this life. I just don't think that generalizing my own experiences and claim that they prove anything to others cuts the ice. One can make statements of general observations, which anyone if they care to can pursue back to first principles. But personal stuff only makes sense and constitutes valuable learning in the context of one's own life, and as far as anyone watching may choose to learn from what they observe.

About presumptions - well you asked for that, telling me more than I wanted to know, but leaving out bits and pieces. I am an analytical sort of critter, but the human brain fills in the blanks if there be blanks.

I see this as a time to back off, as I am emphatically not trying to prove anything, just issuing a gentle warning against throwing out the baby with the stale biscuits. So, take care, it is a labyrinth out there...

"Yes, I catch your drift. I

"Yes, I catch your drift. I had just hoped this would not be about you and me, but about the issues."

For me, the issue is the way in which you threw a large condemnatory blanket over all the people who have faced these very tough decisions, essentially putting everyone who has ended a relationship with children involved into a tidy category of selfish and immature. Unless I've completely misunderstood your position, the idea that all relationships are salvageable through old-fashioned stick-to-it-iveness and elbow grease strikes me as rather unrealistic.

Enough already

"...For me, the issue is the way in which you threw a large condemnatory blanket over all the people who have faced these very tough decisions,..."

OK, for you. For the article writer, it was about what setting the children first would require, and that is what I addressed.

"the idea that all relationships are salvageable through old-fashioned stick-to-it-iveness and elbow grease strikes me as rather unrealistic."

OK. We all live in the center of our own universe. I will let you have yours, if you will let me have mine. I bet you don't run after busses either, whereas I do, seeing you can't lose - you either get a seat, or a bit of cardiac workout.

For the record, it is not my place to condemn anyone singlehandedly. It requires the king and his council of twelve accordingto my cultural norms. But I do call them as I see them. It looks to me as if you condemn stick-to-it-iveness and elbow grease as obsolete, because you prefer a culture in which they don't figure. Isn't diversity wonderful?

The topic at hand

I don't see where in the article the necessity of parents sticking together was mentioned as crucial. In fact I don't see it mentioned at all. Which leads me to believe it's not and your 'universe' is operating with faulty information. Perhaps you need to re-think your opinion?

"It looks to me as if you condemn stick-to-it-iveness and elbow grease as obsolete, because you prefer a culture in which they don't figure. "

Wrong again. I just don't think they are the answer in every instance as you seem to suggest. Sometimes it's better to walk to the bus stop rather than twist an ankle chasing a bus you can't catch.

Finally, I thought your King preached forgiveness. It always strikes me as funny how often his subjects pick and choose which edicts from on high they will follow and if you truly think it's not your place to condemn people, then why are you so willing to do exactly that?

kids need...

Imagine being in Africa, having lost two children already and then losing your wife, with a newborn in your arms. This man might have still been in shock when he placed his son in the orphanage, not just desperate. Few are in a position to speak against him.
In our society, what percentage of parents with minors, have their wills finalized, naming guardians; and if they do, what were the final determining factors? Not so easy?
For me, this story is not about the money or love.
There was no mention of money when David’s father spoke with Madonna.
He agreed, reluctantly, to a promise of happiness for his “beautiful” son.
What greater gift?
Has anyone ever seen a picture of David smiling?
David’s father is right to question David’s well being - in the home of one of the richest women alive and that speaks volumes. There was some drama after Madonna proceeded with this adoption, because there were no adoption laws in place then…coincidence or required?
Madonna didn’t even mail a thank you card, most legal adoptions require more.
I's say she’s lacking that “spirituality” so vital to children.
Actions speak louder than words, here is Madonna using her other son:

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/guy-ritchie-crying-over-rocco-yankee-shirt

Regarding The topic at hand

1)“Apparently, "The real father of Madonna's adopted son feels bitterly disappointed that she is getting a divorce – “

2)"If there is no love in the family, is there any love for him?"

It would seem that the concern here was indeed the coherence of the family. I grant you, there was no ‘authoritative source’ declaring it to be the crucial point, but it is a legitimate point of debate as being raised in the article.

I have tried a few times now, to express my understanding that I have obviously stepped on your personal sore toe, and the discussion has run off the rails. I think we should agree to disagree and call it quits. It is not enough for you. I am not allowed to see things differently and express those views. I could back them up with fat reams of anecdotal stuff, but it would remain anecdotal, and so, in my opinion, not of value in a discussion running on general principles.

“Sometimes it's better to walk to the bus stop rather than twist an ankle chasing a bus you can't catch.”

And faint heart never won fair maiden. How will you ever know if you could have caught it, when you don’t try? We could go on like that, but let’s not. It looks to me like you cannot spell ‘exit strategy’. Are you used to whining and bullying until the other party gives up from fatigue and disgust? You hit the wrong person. I am here to learn, not to win.

My king is not the least bit forgiving. Forgiveness is ultimately rooted in absolute power, and my king does not have that, but must follow the tenets of fundamental justice. I did not say that he ‘would judge you’ where I could not, simply that if judging was called for, it would be his place rather than mine.

Hawkeye

Thank you for reminding us all, what this is about.